- 1 - 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

 Date: September 17, 2015 

 PC Code: 129026 

 DP Barcode: D414537 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Transmittal of Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment 

for Registration Review of the Insect Growth Regulator, Tebufenozide 

TO: Christina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager 

 Avivah Jakob, Team Leader 

Kelly Sherman, Branch Chief 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch III 

 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

 Office of Pesticide Programs 

FROM: Catherine Aubee, Senior Scientist 

 Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist 

 Environmental Risk Branch IV 

 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

 Office of Pesticide Programs 

THROUGH: Jean Holmes, D.V.M., M.P.H., Branch Chief 

 Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor 

 Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist 

 Environmental Risk Branch IV 

 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

 Office of Pesticide Programs 

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division has completed a preliminary risk assessment 

(PRA) that examines the risks to wildlife associated with labeled uses of the insect growth 

regulator (IGR), tebufenozide. The assessment and two associated files (ECOTOX bibliography 

and data table) are attached. Please contact us with any questions or concerns (Catherine Aubee, 

aubee.catherine@epa.gov, 703.347.8029; Jim Carleton, carleton.james@epa.gov, 703.347.0335). 

 CATHERINE AUBEE

 15:33:56 2015.09.17

'00'04-

THOMAS 

STEEGER

Digitally signed by THOMAS STEEGER 

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=USEPA, 

ou=Staff, cn=THOMAS STEEGER, 

dnQualifier=0000012192 

Date: 2015.09.18 08:52:34 -04'00'

JEAN HOLMES 

for Cheryl Sutton 

2015.09.18 11:43:37 -04'00'

JEAN HOLMES Digitally signed by JEAN HOLMES 

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=USEPA, ou=Staff, 

cn=JEAN HOLMES, dnQualifier=0000005813 

Reason: for Jim Carleton 

Date: 2015.09.18 11:48:50 -04'00'

JEAN HOLMES 

2015.09.18 11:50:25 -04'00'
 

Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment 

for Registration Review 

of the Insect Growth Regulator, Tebufenozide 

Tebufenozide

CAS 112410-23-8 PC Code 129026 

September 17, 2015 

Prepared by

Catherine Aubee, Senior Scientist

Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) 

Environmental Risk Branch IV 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Mail Code 7507P 

Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by

Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor

Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist

Jean Holmes, D.V.M., M.P.H., Branch Chief

 

H3C

O

N N

H3C CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3

H

CATHERINE AUBEE

 2015.09.17

'00'04- 15:29:06

THOMAS 

STEEGER

Digitally signed by THOMAS STEEGER 

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, 

ou=USEPA, ou=Staff, cn=THOMAS 

STEEGER, dnQualifier=0000012192 

Date: 2015.09.18 08:50:58 -04'00'

JEAN HOLMES 

for Jim Carleton 

2015.09.18 

11:53:14 -04'00'

JEAN HOLMES 

for Cheryl Sutton 

2015.09.18 11:58:10 -04'00'

JEAN HOLMES 

2015.09.18 11:58:42 -04'00'
1 

Table of Contents 

1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 2

2. Problem Formulation ........................................................................................................ 5

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution .............................................................................................................. 5

2.2.1 Nature of the Chemical Stressor ............................................................................................................... 5

2.3. Receptors .................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects ........................................................................................................ 7

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk ........................................................................................................ 7

2.4. Assessment Endpoints ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.5. Conceptual Model and Risk Hypothesis ............................................................................................... 10

2.6. Analysis Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 12

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure .................................................................................................................... 12

2.6.2. Measures of Effect .......................................................................................................................... 13

2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects ............................................................................................. 14

3. Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 15

3.1 Use Characterization ............................................................................................................................... 15

3.2. Exposure Characterization ...................................................................................................................... 17

3.2.1. Environmental Fate Characterization ........................................................................................... 17

3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure ....................................................................................................... 25

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure .................................................................................................. 29

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization ........................................................................................................ 35

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment .......................................................................................................... 35

3.3.2. Terrestrial Toxicity Assessment ..................................................................................................... 42

3.3.3. Review of Incident Data .................................................................................................................. 47

4. Risk Characterization ......................................................................................................... 47

4.1. Screening-Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values ......................................................................................... 47

4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms ................................................................................................ 47

4.1.2. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms ........................................................................................... 53

4.2. Refinements .............................................................................................................................................. 58

4.2.1. RQs for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Tebufenozide Parent Only .............................................. 58

4.2.2. EECs and RQs for Terrestrial Animals Based on Mean and Upper Bound Kenaga EECs for 

Average Annual Application Rate .................................................................................................................. 59

4.3. Risk Description ....................................................................................................................................... 63

4.3.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms ........................................................................................................... 63

4.3.2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms ...................................................................................................... 66

5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) ........................................................... 70

6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern ............................ 71

7. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 72

8. References ............................................................................................................................ 73

Appendix A. Chemical Names and Structures of Tebufenozide and its Degradates 

Appendix B. Provisional Cranberry Model Equations 

Appendix C. SWCC Sample Input/Output Data 

Appendix D. Example T-REX (v. 1.5.2) Input and Output for Tebufenozide 

Appendix E. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for Tebufenozide 

Appendix F. STIR Input Parameters and Results 

Appendix G. SIP Input Parameters and Results 

Appendix H. Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for Tebufenozide 

Appendix I. Classifications of Ecological Effects Studies Cited in the Risk Assessment for 

Tebufenozide 
2 

Attachments (Separate Electronic Files) 

Attachment I. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature (June 2014 Refresh) 

Attachment II. ECOTOX Data Table (June 2014 Refresh) 

1. Executive Summary 

 

The preliminary risk assessment (PRA) in support of Registration Review for the insect growth 

regulator (IGR), tebufenozide, examines the risks to wildlife associated with its labeled uses. 

The risk assessment is based on the best available scientific and commercial information on the 

use, environmental fate and transport, and effects of tebufenozide on non-target organisms. This 

PRA includes two major components. First, a screening-level assessment is presented, 

consistent with prior assessments for tebufenozide pesticide registration actions. Second, where 

risks of concern are identified at the screening level, a refined analysis is presented and 

integrated into the risk description to further characterize those risks to wildlife. Additional lines 

of evidence which may be useful to further refine the risk profile for tebufenozide are identified. 

 

The assessment concludes that the use of tebufenozide in accordance with registered labels may 

result in chronic risks to mammals that exceed the Agency’s chronic risk Level of Concern 

(LOC). Adverse effects in mammals following chronic exposure to tebufenozide in laboratory 

studies include reduced growth and reproductive impairments. Sublethal effects (i.e., spleen 

lesions) in mammals have been observed at lower doses more comparable to environmentally 

relevant exposures for wildlife. Several uses of tebufenozide result in chronic risks to birds (and 

to reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians for which birds serve as surrogates) exposed to 

tebufenozide in the diet. The estimated risk is greatest for the labeled uses on tree nuts (almonds, 

walnuts, and other nuts) and pome fruits. The potential for adverse effects to terrestrial 

vertebrates from acute exposure from ingestion of tebufenozide residues is considered low. 

There is uncertainty regarding whether adverse effects may occur in non-target terrestrial 

invertebrates exposed through direct application and spray drift, consistent with the intended use 

of tebufenozide as an insect growth regulator. Available data indicate that tebufenozide is 

practically nontoxic to adult honey bees (Apis mellifera) on an acute exposure basis, but these 

data may not capture potential sublethal effects on larval insect growth and development. Semifield studies with methoxyfenozide, a structural analogue of tebufenozide, showed no adverse 

effects on honey bee colony overwintering survival, but a recently submitted laboratory-based 

study suggests that honey bee larvae may be sensitive to dietary exposure. Risks to terrestrial 

and aquatic plants from tebufenozide uses are below LOCs. 

Although risk estimates exceed levels of concern for chronic risk to terrestrial vertebrates in 

cases where maximum application rates are used, refined estimates of exposure and risk (based 

on average annual usage data for certain crops) suggest that risk is lower on average. When 

survey-generated data on average annual usage are considered as an alternative to the maximum 

labeled application rate, chronic risks to growth and reproduction in mammals and in birds are 

generally at or below LOCs. 

Aquatic estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) and risk estimates are presented for 

maximum labeled rates only. Various uses of tebufenozide present risk estimates that exceed 
3 

LOCs (for acute risk to listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates and for chronic risk to 

freshwater animals (e.g., fish, amphibians, and invertebrates). For the use on cranberry, where 

exposure reflects application to areas that are, or that subsequently become, impounded (flooded 

bogs), risk of mortality also exceeds the LOC for nonlisted species of estuarine/marine 

invertebrates. The risks for estuarine/marine invertebrates are based upon mollusc toxicity data 

and extend to freshwater molluscs, which are not directly tested. This assessment considers the 

potential for aquatic exposure to total toxic residues (tebufenozide plus degradates), as outlined 

in the Problem Formulation, and exposure to tebufenozide parent compound only, since newly 

received data indicate that the degradates tested are less acutely toxic to aquatic organisms than 

parent tebufenozide. When only tebufenozide parent is considered, fewer uses result in LOC 

exceedances, and chronic risk to freshwater fish and amphibians is below the LOC. 

Nonguideline data suggest that benthic organisms, such as freshwater midge larvae (Order: 

Diptera), may be more sensitive to tebufenozide exposure than fully aquatic and water-column 

dwelling invertebrates such as daphnia (Order: Cladocera) and mysid shrimp (Order: Mysida). 

Chronic (28-day) sediment toxicity data are needed to quantitatively assess risks. 

Of all tebufenozide’s uses, the cranberry use generated the highest aquatic estimated 

environmental concentrations (EECs). The cranberry EECs reflect concentrations in undiluted 

cranberry bog water at a depth of 12 inches. In addition to non-target organisms that reside in 

cranberry bogs, these risks are conservatively assumed to also reflect risks to organisms that 

reside in receiving waters near points where cranberry bogs directly discharge to such waters. 

Based on the range of RQ values (acute <0.55, chronic< 3.65), risk estimates exceed LOCs for 

aquatic animal species thus exposed, assuming that waters are released immediately following 

treatment. To the extent that treated waters are held in the bog prior to release, residues would 

be expected to be somewhat attenuated, however given tebufenozide’s long aquatic half-life 

(~100 days for parent compound), the amount of attenuation is likely to be small. For the use on 

cranberries, exposures to non-target organisms may also occur as a consequence of tebufenozide 

applied to bogs in a pre-flooded state, wherein rainfall-runoff may subsequently result in 

transport of residues more immediately into adjacent water bodies. This scenario was addressed 

separately, using the same approach as for other field crops, using standard EFED surface water 

modeling tools. 

Table 1 presents a summary of general risk conclusions for tebufenozide uses at the maximum 

labeled application rates. A shaded cell (“yes”) indicates that risk exceeds the Agency’s level of 

concern based on risk estimates or other lines of evidence, such as chemical mode of action. The 

risk characterization is presented in detail beginning in Section 4.
Table 1. General risk conclusions based on maximum labeled application rates for tebufenozide. 

Use(s) 

È

Fish and 

amphibians 

Aquatic 

invertebrates 

Aquatic 

plants 

Birds, reptiles, 

and terrestrial 

amphibians 

Mammals Terrestrial invert. Terrestrial plants 

Nonlisted

acute 

Listed

acute 

Chronic 

Nonlisted

acute 

Listed

acute 

Chronic 

Nonlisted

Listed

Nonlisted

acute 

Listed

acute 

Chronic 

Nonlisted

acute 

Listed

acute 

Chronic 

Acute 

Chronic 

Nonlsited 

Listed

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries No No No No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoCaneberries No No No No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoCanola No No Yes+ No Yes *,¥ Yes ^, ¥ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoCitrus No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoCole crops and leafy vegetables No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoCotton No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoCranberries No Yes^ Yes+ Yes~ Yes# Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoFruiting vegetables No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoMint No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoPastures and rangeland No No No No Yes* Yes^ No No No No No No No Yes» No IGR No NoPome fruits No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoSugarcane No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoTree nuts (almond, walnut, other nuts) No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoTree nuts (pecan) No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No No

Non-agricultural Uses 

Ornamentals No No Yes+ No Yes* Yes^ No No No No Yes» No No Yes» No IGR No NoForest, trees and shrubs No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes» No IGR No No ^ Risk to freshwater species. Uncertainty regarding estuarine/marine species due to lack of data or nondefinitive toxicity endpoints. 

+ Chronic risk to freshwater fish and amphibians but not to estuarine/marine fish. Risk is below the LOC for exposure to tebufenozide parent only. ~ Acute risk to nonlisted species of freshwater molluscs and estuarine/marine invertebrates, based on estuarine/marine mollusc toxicity data. * Acute risk to listed species of freshwater molluscs and estuarine/marine invertebrates, based on estuarine/marine mollusc toxicity data. ¥ Risk is below the LOC for exposure to tebufenozide parent only. # Acute risk to listed species of freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates. » Level of concern (LOC) for dietary exposure is exceeded at the maximum labeled application rate but not at the highest average annual application rate reported for tebufenozide 

(based on walnut use); however, dose-adjusted values still exceed LOCs for mammals at the average rate. 

IGR Tebufenozide is an insect growth regulator (IGR) intended to target lepidopterans (moths and butterflies). Nonguideline data with honey bees showed mixed effects on honey 

bee larval development but clear risk assessment endpoints have not been established. 
2. Problem Formulation 

The purpose of problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmental fate and 

ecological risk assessment being conducted for the labeled uses of tebufenozide, which are 

summarized in the most recent usage report package compiled by the Biological and Economic 

Analysis Division (BEAD) (August 6, 2014). The problem formulation sets the objectives for 

the risk assessment and provides a plan for analyzing the data and characterizing the risk 

(USEPA 1998a). As part of the Registration Review process, a preliminary Problem 

Formulation (DP Barcode D352989) for this risk assessment was published to the docket 

[Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0824] in November 2008. The following section summarizes 

the key points of that document and discusses any differences between the analysis outlined 

preliminary problem formulation and the analysis conducted in this risk assessment. 

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action 

The risk assessment is conducted as part of the Agency’s Registration Review process for 

pesticide active ingredients. The Registration Review process was established under the Food 

Quality Protection Act (FQPA 1996). 

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution 

2.2.1 Nature of the Chemical Stressor 

Tebufenozide, benzoic acid, 3,5-dimethyl-1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2- (4-ethylbenzoyl) hydrazide 

(CAS No. 112410-23-8), belongs to the diacylhydrazine class of insecticides that mimic the 

endogenous steroidal molting hormone 20-hydroxyecdysone, binding to its receptor protein 

complex. As such tebufenozide is referred to as a (non-steroidal) ecdysone agonist (Dhadialla, 

Carlson, & Le, 1998) (Shimizu, et al., 1997). As an ecdysone agonist, tebufenozide induces a 

precocious, incomplete molt in insect larvae, particularly lepidopterae. The specificity of 

tebufenozide against lepidoptera is based on the chemical’s greater affinity for the lepidopteran 

ecdysone receptor protein complex as compared with other insects, and the ability of other insect 

orders to actively exclude the ecdysone agonist (Sundaram, Palli, Sohi, Dhadialla, & 

Retmakaran, 1998). Although most insect orders have been reported to be unaffected, ecdysone 

agonists have produced lethal effects in lepidopteran, dipteran and coleopteran larvae; symptoms 

in affected orders are similar to those expected from a state of ecdysone excess, called 

hyperecdysonism (Dhadialla, Carlson, & Le, 1998). After ingestion of toxic doses, sensitive 

larvae stop feeding, and the molting process initiates prematurely, leading to desiccation and 

ultimate death. Besides having larvicidal effects, the diacylhydrazines can cause reduced egg 

production in lepidopteran, coleopteran and dipteran insects, and can disrupt normal 

spermatogenic processes in several lepidopteran species (Dhadialla, Carlson, & Le, 1998). 

Based on consultation with the Residues of Concern Knowledge-Base Subcommittee (ROCKS), 

tebufenozide and its major degradates the carboxylic acids RH-112651 and RH-112703, and 

ketone RH-96595 (Table 3.4) are considered Residues of Concern (ROC) in surface waterderived drinking water. EFED thus included the parent and the three degradates in its drinking 

water assessment and has included them in the aquatic modeling for this (current) ecological risk 
6 

assessment. However, in the risk description section, a refinement of the assessment using 

parent tebufenozide only was conducted since newly received data indicate that the degradates 

tested are less acutely toxic to aquatic organisms than parent tebufenozide. 

In the Total Toxic Residues (TTR) approach to model water exposures, the TTR comprise parent 

tebufenozide plus all three of its major metabolites (RH-112651, RH-112703 and RH-96595). 

Tebufenozide TTR was conservatively modeled as a single conceptual entity with SWCC and 

with the Provisional Cranberry Model, using an aerobic soil half-life representing the 

degradation of parent plus all three degradates, and a soil sorption coefficient (KOC) reflecting 

one of the degradates (RH-112651, which is more mobile than the parent), for which data were 

available. Table 2.1 presents an overview of tebufenozide’s structure and chemical profile. 

Table 2.1. Chemical Profile of Tebufenozide. 

Common name Tebufenozide 

IUPAC name N-tert-Butyl-Nƍ-(4-ethylbenzoyl)-3,5-dimethylbenzohydrazide 

CAS name 3,5-Dimethylbenzoic acid 1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-(4-

ethylbenzoyl)hydrazide 

Structure 

Pesticide type Insecticide 

Chemical class Diacylhydrazine 

CAS number 112410-23-8 

Empirical formula C22H28N2O2

Molecular mass 352.26 

2.2.2 Overview of Pesticide Usage 

Tebufenozide is an active ingredient in several formulated products registered for control of 

lepidopteran pests. Tebufenozide is registered for use on bushberries, caneberries, blueberries, 

brassica vegetables, canola, citrus, cotton, cranberries, fruiting vegetables, mint, ornamentals, 

pome fruit, sugar cane, tree nuts (including pecans, almonds and walnuts), other nuts, pastures 

and range land, forests and ornamental trees. Tebufenozide is formulated as a wettable powder 

and emulsifiable, flowable, and soluble concentrates. According to the Biological and Economic 

Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile for Registration Review (2011) for orchard crops, 

applications may occur at bloom through foliar stages, hull split, or pink through petal fall. For 

berry crops applications may occur at bloom through foliar stages. For field crops, ornamentals 

and forest trees, fruiting vegetables and other crops, applications are foliar only. Both aerial and 

ground spray are allowed for all uses, and a hand sprayer is also allowed for the ornamental use. 

Application rates and minimum retreatment intervals vary by use, with multiple applications 

allowed for all uses, and a maximum annual rate of 2.0 lb a.i./A for the fruiting vegetable, mint, 

and ornamental uses. Specific use rates are discussed in Section 3.1. According to the most 

recent Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) report provided by BEAD (Table 3.2), the 

majority of tebufenozide is used on sugarcane, with 10,000 pounds of active ingredient applied 

H3C

O

N N

H3C CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H
7 

per year to sugarcane over the 2004-2011 period. Tomatoes, almonds, walnuts, pecans and 

lettuce are also appreciable uses reported in the SLUA. 

2.3. Receptors 

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects 

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA 1998). Consistent 

with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), this risk assessment uses 

a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of tebufenozide. Toxicity data generated from 

surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are 

used to extrapolate potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these 

taxonomic groupings. 

Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the 

available open literature are used to evaluate potential direct effects of tebufenozide to aquatic 

and terrestrial receptors. The open literature studies are located through EPA’s database 

ECOTOX (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/), which provides a source for locating single chemical 

toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. 

Table 2.2 provides examples of taxonomic groups and the surrogate species tested to evaluate 

potential ecological effects of pesticides to these non-target taxonomic groups. The table also 

provides a summary of the acute toxicity classifications of tebufenozide, any tested end-use 

products (EPs), and any tested degradates for each described taxon; note that ecotoxicity data for 

animals are routinely required for the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) only. 

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope; therefore, it may not be possible to identify 

specific ecosystems at the screening level. In general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at 

risk could include the treated site and areas immediately adjacent to the treated site that may 

receive drift, runoff, eroded sediment, or discharged subsurface (ground) water. Such areas 

could include the treatment site itself, other cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, 

meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats, and other uncultivated areas. 
8 

Table 2.2. Taxonomic Groups and Example Test Species for Effects of Tebufenozide. 

Taxonomic Group Example(s) of Surrogate Species Acute Toxicity Classification TGAI Tested EPs Degradates5

Birds1 Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) Practically nontoxic NA NA 

Mammals2 Laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus) Practically nontoxic NA NA 

Insects Honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) Practically nontoxic (contact exposure) NA NA 

Freshwater fish3 Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) Moderately toxic NA No more than moderately toxic 

Freshwater invertebrates Waterflea (Daphnia magna) Moderately toxic Slightly toxic (HOE 105540, 24.5%) No more than moderately toxic 

Estuarine/marine fish Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Highly toxic6 NA NA 

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates Eastern oyster (Crassotrea virginicus) Highly toxic NA NA 

Terrestrial plants4 Monocots – onion (Allium cepa) Dicots – cabbage (Brassica oleracea) NA Not classified (Confirm® 2F, 22.8%) NA 

Aquatic plants and algae Duckweed (Lemna gibba) Green alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) Not classified NA Not classified 

Abbreviations: EP: End-use product; NA: Not applicable because no data available; TGAI: Technical grade active ingredient. 1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 2 Based on data reviewed by Office of Pesticide Programs Health Effects Division (HED). 3 Freshwater fish represent surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. 4 Four species of two families of monocots, of which one is corn; six species of at least four dicot families, of which one is soybeans. 5 RH-112,651; RH-112,703; RH-96,595. 6 Based on nondefinitive LC50 >720 ug/L. 
9 

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to or downstream from the 

treated area and may include natural or impounded lentic systems such as ponds, lakes and 

reservoirs, and lotic (flowing) waterways, i.e., streams and rivers. For the use on cranberries, the 

treatment area itself is also considered. Aquatic ecosystems supplied by groundwater, such as 

cave ecosystems and areas supplied by natural springs, may be at risk if a compound has the 

potential to leach into the subsurface. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat includes estuarine 

and marine ecosystems. Within water bodies, the water column, sediment, and pore water are all 

compartments of potential concern. 

Hazard and risk to sediment-associated (epibenthic) organisms may be assessed if the physicochemical characteristics of the pesticide indicate that it partitions to sediment. Specific triggers 

for sediment toxicity testing are outlined in 40 CFR Part 158.630 and are summarized in Table

2.3, below. The octanol-water partitioning coefficient (log Kow) value and aerobic soil and 

aquatic metabolism half-lives for tebufenozide parent indicate that chronic (e.g., 28-day) 

sediment toxicity testing and risk assessment are needed. 

Table 2.3. Sediment toxicity testing triggers. 

Parameter (per 40 CFR Part 158.630) Tebufenozide 

Values 

Reference (MRID) 

Soil partition coefficient (Kd) > 50 1.6 – 8.2 mL/g 42436208 

Octanol-water coefficient (log KOW) > 3 4.25 42436201, 42441201 

Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (KOC) > 1,000 351 – 894 mL/gOC 42436208 

Half-life (aerobic soil or aquatic metabolism) (t1/2) < 10 days* aerobic soil: 

27.8 – 153 days 

aerobic aquatic: 

99 – 101 days 

42436206, 47881102 

42436207 Half-life (aerobic soil or aquatic metabolism) (t1/2) > 10 days** 

Sediment EEC > 0.1 x acute EC50/LC50 values*** Not available Not available 

* For consideration of study duration; indicates that an acute (e.g., 10-day) test duration may be appropriate. 

** For consideration of study duration; indicates that a chronic (e.g., 28-day) test duration may be appropriate. 

*** Additional consideration for chronic sediment toxicity data needs. 

 

2.4. Assessment Endpoints 

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental values that are to be protected, defined 

by ecological entities (species, community, etc.) and their attributes or characteristics (USEPA 

1998). For tebufenozide, the ecological entities assessed include the following: birds, 

amphibians, reptiles, mammals, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, terrestrial and aquatic 

invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. The attributes for each of these entities may 

include growth, survival, and reproduction. (See Table 2.3 in Section 2.6.2, the Analysis Plan, 

for further discussion). 

The assessment endpoints are intended to reflect population sustainability and community 

structure within ecosystems and hence relate to ecosystems at risk. If risks are identified for 

given species/taxa based on a screening-level assessment, then such risks might be expected to 

translate to higher levels of biological organization. 
10 

2.5. Conceptual Model and Risk Hypothesis 

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically 

significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the 

environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological pathway to be complete, 

it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of 

exposure for ecological receptors, and a plausible route of exposure. The conceptual model is 

intended to provide a description of predicted relationships between tebufenozide, potential 

routes of exposure, and the effects related to the Agency assessment endpoints. The risk 

hypothesis is a component of the conceptual model. 

The conceptual model used to describe ecological risks associated with the foliar uses of 

tebufenozide relies on previous assessments and the Agency’s current understanding of the 

environmental fate and ecological effects of the chemical. Previous risk assessments (e.g., DP 

Barcodes D270058, D255795) have identified direct chronic risks to birds and mammals. 

For tebufenozide, the following ecological risk hypothesis is employed for the ecological risk 

assessment: 

Given the registered uses of tebufenozide and its environmental fate properties, there is 

possible acute and chronic exposure to non-target aquatic and terrestrial organisms. 

Previous risk assessments have identified chronic risks to birds and mammals. Although 

the literature suggests that tebufenozide-like compounds have a high affinity for the 

lepidopteran ecdysone receptor (Sundaram et al. 1998), there is uncertainty regarding 

the degree to which tebufenozide could potentially affect a wider range of terrestrial 

invertebrates. Potential risk to other non-target organisms has generally been identified 

as uncertain or below the Agency’s Levels of Concern. This assessment tests the 

hypothesis that, when used in accordance with the label, tebufenozide exposure may 

result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target 

aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. 

For terrestrial organisms, the primary route of exposure assessed at the screening level is the 

dietary route, via consumption of food items such as plant leaves or insects that have 

tebufenozide residues as a result of spraying. The assessment considers exposure of non-target 

terrestrial invertebrates through oral ingestion and through contact, e.g., as a result of direct 

deposition or spray drift. Direct deposition and uptake from soil are the major routes of exposure 

considered for terrestrial and wetland (riparian) plants. 

Based on tebufenozide’s vapor pressure (2.3 x 10-8 torr), the chemical is not expected to readily 

volatilize. Therefore, this assessment does not evaluate potential atmospheric transport in 

estimating environmental concentrations. The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR) (see 

Section 2.6.2), which compares inhalation exposure estimates to available avian and mammalian 

toxicity data, indicates that inhalation is not likely a major exposure pathway for tebufenozide. 

The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP) indicates that drinking water exposure alone is not a 

pathway of concern for birds or mammals. This assessment does not account for possible 
11 

ingestion of tebufenozide residues in contaminated grit or from preening activities of terrestrial 

animals, and it does not evaluate potential uptake through dermal absorption. 

For aquatic assessments, the major routes of exposure for aquatic animal species are considered 

to be through the respiratory surface (gills) or the integument. Similar to terrestrial organisms, 

exposure of aquatic organisms to tebufenozide may also occur through ingestion of residues in 

sediment and forage. Parent tebufenozide is fairly hydrophobic, with an octanol-water partition 

coefficient (Kow) of 17,906 (log Kow = 4.25; MRID 42436201, 42441201); however, its 

measured bioconcentration factors (BCFs) (up to 151x in whole fish tissue) are less than 1,000x, 

indicating that it does not appreciably bioconcentrate in fish (MRID 42436209, 42931224). 

Therefore, although tebufenozide residues may be present in prey and forage, bioaccumulation 

potential is considered low. Aquatic plants may be exposed via direct uptake and adsorption. 
12 

2.6. Analysis Plan

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure

2.6.1.1. Measures of Aquatic Exposure 

Measures of exposure to aquatic animals and plants are pesticide concentrations in surface water 

and benthic sediment pore water simulated by the Surface Water Concentration Calculator 

(SWCC) (version 1.106; May 2014), to generate EECs for tebufenozide that may occur from use 

on crops, typically at maximum label use rates. The EECs used in risk assessment are simulated 

1-in-10 year return frequency “peaks” (acute assessments) and mean concentrations over a 

specified duration (chronic assessments) generated at the modeled site, which is selected to 

represent a location expected to be more contamination-vulnerable than most locations where the 

crop is grown. For cranberry use, the Provisional Cranberry Model (v 2.0, December 9, 2010) 

was used to generate screening-level EECs in water within or released from a cranberry bog. 

The Provisional Cranberry Model is based on the same assumptions as the Tier I Rice Model 

(v1.0, May 8, 2007), with the addition of degradation processes in dry and flood conditions and a 

water depth of twelve inches in the flooded cranberry bog. The cranberry bog water depth of 

twelve inches is a maximum depth recommended by the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers 

Association (2001). Degradation of tebufenozide residues of concern is assumed to occur 

predominantly via aerobic microbial metabolism, whether on dry cranberry bog soil or in bog 

flood water. The equations used in the Provisional Cranberry Model are briefly described in 

Appendix B. 

2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure 

Terrestrial wildlife are exposed to tebufenozide via consumption of residues on food items 

generated by spray applications. For spray applications, the T-REX model (Terrestrial Residue 

EXposure model; v. 1.5.2; June 6, 2013) is used to predict dietary exposure to tebufenozide 

residues on foliar surfaces and insects using the Kenaga nomogram as modified by Fletcher 

(Hoerger & Kenaga, 1972) (Fletcher, Nellessen, & Pfleeger, 1994). The EECs for risk 

estimation are peak (point-in-time) values based on the 90th percentile upper bound of the 

Kenaga nomogram. Median Kenaga nomogram values are used in this assessment to further 

characterize the range of potential exposures associated with a given use. Foliar dissipation is 

considered in the calculation of peak values (e.g., when multiple applications of tebufenozide are 

permitted within a year) and to characterize residue decline when adverse effects may be 

associated non-acute exposures. A default foliar dissipation half-life of 35 days is used for 

exposure and risk estimates in this assessment, based on Willis and McDowell (1987). This halflife is slightly shorter than those identified in a preliminary review of tebufenozide foliar 

dissipation half-lives in forestry matrices (30 to 58 days), which were highly variable (MRIDs 

43935604, 43935605). It is approximately three times greater than the foliar dissipation half-life 

value proposed by the registrant (11 days; MRID 44200302)1

. 

 

1 See Johnson, M. 1998. Draft agenda – CONFIRM meeting with EFED. January 23, 1998. EPA SAN identifier: 

R2072287. 
13 

The TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2; December 26, 2006) model is used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial 

and wetland plants exposed to tebufenozide as a combination of spray drift and runoff. The 

model employs the assumption that default fractions of the intended application are transported 

to an adjacent habitat. Measures of exposure to terrestrial plants are expressed as a fraction of 

the mass of the tebufenozide applied to the treated field. 

The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v.1.0, November 19, 2010) was used to calculate 

an upper bound estimate of exposure using tebufenozide’s vapor pressure and molecular weight 

for vapor phase exposure as well as the maximum application rate and method of application for 

spray drift. STIR incorporates results from several toxicity studies including acute oral and 

inhalation rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the “six-pack” of core studies, which is a series of 

six guideline studies that are submitted to the the Agency for technical and formulated products 

of a pesticide (LD50 = 5,000 mg/kg bw/day, MRID 42436212; and inhalation LC50 >1.33 mg/L, 

MRID 44727705, respectively) as well as the acute oral avian toxicity endpoint (bobwhite quail 

LD50 > 2,150 mg/kg bw, MRID 42436234). Based on the results of the STIR model (Appendix

F), exposure through inhalation of spray drift or the vapor phase of tebufenozide was not 

determined to be a potential pathway of concern for either avian or mammalian species on an 

acute exposure basis. 

 

The analysis of the inhalation route in STIR does not consider that aggregation with other 

exposure pathways such as dietary, dermal, or drinking water may contribute to a total exposure 

that has a potential for effects to non-target animals. However, the Agency considers the relative 

importance of other routes of exposure in situations where data indicate that pesticide exposures 

through other routes may be potentially significant contributors to wildlife risk (USEPA 2004). 

The risk characterization section (Section 4.3), discusses the impact of other routes of exposure 

that have been identified as potentially important and the degree of certainty associated with 

screening-level risk assessment conclusions. Detailed information about STIR v.1.0, as well as 

the tool, can be found on EPA’s website 

(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial).

The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v.1.0, released June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an 

upper-bound estimate of exposure using tebufenozide’s solubility (0.83 mg/L at 25qC, MRID 

42436201, 42441201), and compared to the most sensitive acute and chronic avian and 

mammalian toxicity endpoints (see Table 3.22 and 3.23, respectively). Drinking water exposure 

alone was not a pathway of concern for either birds or mammals. For a sample of the output 

generated by SIP v.1.0, please see Appendix G. 

2.6.2. Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant-submitted guideline studies which were 

conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species. The test species are not intended to 

be representative of the most sensitive species, but rather were selected based on their ability to 

thrive under laboratory conditions. Toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment utilizes 

surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the U.S. 

The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), was searched in June 2014 to identify whether 
14 

additional, more sensitive ecological effects data were available for tebufenozide; however, no 

more useful data were identified (USEPA 2014). 

The acute measures of effect used in this screening-level assessment are the LD50 (Lethal Dose), 

LC50 (Lethal Concentration), EC50 (Effects Concentration), and IC50 (Inhibition Concentration). 

These are measures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested 

organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC (No Observed 

Adverse Effects Concentration) and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effects Level). 

Toxicity studies were submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and 

invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals, bees, and other terrestrial invertebrates. The 

endpoints used for risk assessment were derived from studies which underwent review and were 

classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be 

scientifically valid) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results were 

considered to be scientifically valid). 

2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects 

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse 

ecological effects on non-target species. For the risk assessment of tebufenozide, the RQ method 

is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ method involves 

dividing EECs by point estimates of the most sensitive acute and chronic toxicity values. The 

resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s LOCs (USEPA 2004) (Table 2.3). These 

criteria are used to indicate when applications of tebufenozide, as directed on the label, have the 

potential to cause adverse effects to non-target, federally listed threatened/endangered (hereafter 

referred to as “listed”) and non-listed species. 

Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class. 

Risk Class Risk Description RQ LOC

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures 

Peak EEC/LC501 0.5 

Acute Listed 

Species 

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures 

Peak EEC/LC501

 0.05 

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from 

chronic exposures 

60-day EEC/NOAEC 

(fish) 1 

21-day EEC/NOAEC 

(invertebrates) 

Aquatic Plants 

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/LC501 1 

Listed Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/NOAEC 1 

Terrestrial Animals (mammals, birds, and invertebrates)2

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures 

EEC/LC50 (dietary) 0.5 

EEC/LD50 (dose) 

EEC/LD50

(invertebrate) 0.4 
15 

Risk Class Risk Description RQ LOC

Acute Listed 

Species 

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures 

EEC/LC50 (dietary) 0.1 

EEC/LD50 (dose) 

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from 

chronic exposures EEC/NOAEC 1 

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants 

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-target, non-listed plants from 

exposures 

EEC/ EC25 or IC25 1 

Listed Plant Potential for effects to non-target, listed plants from 

exposures 

EEC/ NOAEC 

1 

EEC/ EC05

1 LC50 or EC50. 2

 EEC based on upper bound Kenaga nomogram values for foliar exposure. 

The Agency uses the probit dose-response relationship as a tool for providing additional 

information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual listed species and aquatic 

animals that may indirectly affect the listed species of concern (USEPA 2004). As part of this 

evaluation, the acute RQ for listed species is presented in terms of the chance of an individual 

event (i.e., mortality or immobilization), should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species 

with sensitivity to tebufenozide on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ 

calculation. To accomplish this interpretation, the Agency uses the slope of the dose-response 

relationship available from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity measures of 

effect for each taxonomic group that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects 

probability associated with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an 

assumption of a probit dose-response relationship. In addition to a single effects probability 

estimate based on the mean, upper and lower estimates of the effects probability are also 

provided to account for variance in the slope, if available. If no dose-response information is 

available to estimate a slope for this analysis, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used, with 

lower and upper bounds of 2 to 9 (USEPA 2004). 

Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet tool 

IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by EPA (June 22, 2004). The 

model allows for such calculations by entering the mean slope estimate (and the confidence 

bounds of that estimate) as the slope parameter in the spreadsheet. The desired threshold for the 

probability of an individual effect is entered as the listed species LOC or based on the calculated 

acute RQ, if available. 

3. Analysis 

3.1 Use Characterization 
16 

Table 3.1 lists the currently registered uses of tebufenozide. Based on the current labels, the 

maximum single application rate for tebufenozide is 0.47 lbs a.i./A (Table 3.1). The maximum 

rate per year is 2.0 lbs a.i./A. Table 3.2 lists average annual application rates based on survey 

data provided through the Biological and Economic Assessment Division (BEAD); in general, 

the average annual application rates listed in Table 3.2 are lower than the maximum annual rate 

reported in Table 3.1. 

Table 3.1. Methods and Maximum Rates of Application of Currently Registered Uses of Tebufenozide. 

Uses Application

type 

Maximum

Number of 

applications / 

year 

Minimum

Retreatment 

Interval

(days) 

Maximum rate / 

single 

application

(lbs a.i./A) 

Maximum

rate / year 

(lbs a.i./A) 

Agricultural Uses

Bushberries foliar1,2 NS 7 0.25 1.0 

Caneberries foliar1,2 NS 10 0.25 1.0 

Canola foliar1,2 NS 10 0.25 1.0 

Citrus foliar1,2 NS 14 0.25 1.25 

Cole crops and leafy vegetables foliar1,2 NS 10 0.12 1.8 

Cotton foliar1,2 NS 10 0.25 1.0 

Cranberries foliar1,2 4 7 0.25 1.0 

Fruiting vegetables foliar1,2 NS 10 0.25 2.0 

Mint foliar1,2 NS 10 0.25 2.0 

Pastures and rangeland foliar1,2 4 10 0.125 0.50 

Pome fruits foliar1,2 NS 7 0.31 1.875 

Sugarcane foliar 1,2 NS 10 0.25 1.0 

Tree nuts (almond, walnut, other 

nuts) foliar1,2 NS 10 0.47 1.9 

Tree nuts (pecan) foliar1,2 NS 8 0.25 1.9 

Nonagricultural Uses

Ornamentals foliar1,2 NS 10 0.25 2.0 

Forest, trees and shrubs foliar1,2 NS 5 0.12 0.25 

NS

 Not specified 1

ground 

2

aerial 

According to the most recent Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) report provided by 

BEAD (Table 3.2), the majority of tebufenozide is used on sugarcane, with 10,000 pounds of 

active ingredient applied per year over the 2004-2011 period. Tomatoes, almonds, walnuts, 

pecans, and lettuce are also appreciable uses reported in the SLUA. 
17 

Table 3.2. Estimates of Agricultural Usage of Tebufenozide (OPP/BEAD). 

Crop 

Average Mass 

Applied1

(lbs a.i./yr) 

Percent Crop Treated Average Annual 

App. Rate2

(lbs a.i./A/year) Average1 (%) Maximum1 (%)

Alfalfa 1,000 <1 <2.5 NC 

Almonds 4,000 <2.5 5 0.250 

Apples 1,000 <1 <2.5 0.257 

Blueberries 1,000 10 15 NC 

Broccoli <500 <2.5 5 0.111 

Cabbage <500 5 5 0.117 

Caneberries <500 5 10 0.250 

Cauliflower 1,000 5 10 NC 

Celery <500 5 20 0.125 

Cotton 1,000 <1 <2.5 0.228 

Grapes+ 1,000 <1 <2.5 0.125 

Lettuce 2,000 5 15 0.111 

Parsley <500 5 5 NC 

Pears <500 <1 <2.5 NC 

Pecans 2,000 5 10 0.136 

Peppers 1,000 5 25 0.107 

Pistachios 1,000 <2.5 <2.5 NC 

Rice <500 <1 <2.5 NC 

Spinach <500 <2.5 <2.5 0.125 

Squash <500 NR NR 0.125 

Strawberries <500 NR NR 0.250 

Sugarcane 10,000 15 25 0.102 

Tomatoes 7,000 5 15 0.144 

Turnips <500 <2.5 5 NC 

Walnuts 5,000 5 10 0.267 

All numbers rounded. App(s).: Application(s). NC: Not calculated. NR: Not reported. + Use site not currently registered. 1. Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA), 2004-2012, OPP/BEAD, 6 August 2014; 

2. EPA Proprietary Data for Tebufenozide, 2008-2012, email from D. Atwood (OPP/BEAD) to K. Keller (PRD), 25 August 

2014.

3.2. Exposure Characterization 

3.2.1. Environmental Fate Characterization 

General physical/chemical properties and submitted environmental fate data for tebufenozide and 

its major degradates are summarized in Table 3.3 and are discussed in greater detail in the 

following sections. 
18 

Table 3.3. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Tebufenozide. 

Property Value Source 

(MRID) 

Study 

Classification Comments 

Chemical Name 

N-tert-Butyl-Nƍ-(4-

ethylbenzoyl)-3,5-

dimethylbenzohydrazide 

 

Molecular Weight 

(g/mol) 352.26 42436201 42441201 

Solubility in Water 

(mg/L, 25°C) 0.83 mg/L 42436201 

42441201 

Vapor Pressure (Pa, 

25°C) 3 x 10-6 42436201 

42441201 

Octanol-water partition 

coefficient (KOW) 17,906 (log Kow 4.25) 42436201 

42441201 

Hydrolysis Half-life 

(23-25qC) (days) 

stable (pH 5) 

stable (pH7) 

stable (pH 9) 

42436204 Acceptable 

Aqueous Photolysis 

Half-life (pH 7.27) 

(days) 

stable 42436205 Supplemental 

Study was conducted 

in pond water, not 

buffer, so calculated 

half-life of 67 days is 

not valid for use in 

modeling. Photolysis 

is not expected based 

on UV absorbance 

spectrum.

Soil photolysis half-life 

(days; assuming 12 h 

light/day) (25qC) 

98 42991512 Acceptable 

Aerobic soil 

metabolism half-lives, 

parent (20qC for CA 

loam and 25qC for the 

rest) 

153 (CA loam) 42436206 Supplemental 

Not clear that soil 

moisture was 

maintained at field 

capacity. Data from 

NJ soil are not valid 

due to anomalous 

degradation profile. 

31.1 (Speyer sand) 

28.2 (Speyer loamy sand) 

27.8 (Speyer sandy loam) 

31.4 (SLV sandy loam) 

47881102 Supplemental 

Soil extraction 

procedure was not 

demonstrated to be 

accurate to remove all 

identifiable residues. 

Aerobic soil 

metabolism half-lives, 

TTR (20qC for CA 

loam and 25qC for the 

rest) 

139 (CA loam) 

49.7 (Speyer sand) 

41.3 (Speyer loamy sand) 

42.1 (Speyer sandy loam) 

49.4 (SLV sandy loam) 42436206 

47881102 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Not clear that soil 

moisture was 

maintained 

(42436206). 

Soil extraction 

procedure was not 

demonstrated to be 

accurate to remove all 

identifiable residues 

47881102. 

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism half-lives, 

parent (days) (25qC) 

99 (parent) 

361 (TTR) 42436207 Acceptable 

Arkansas silty clay 

hydrosoil 

101 (parent) 

176 (TTR) 

California clay loam 

hydrosoil

Anaerobic aquatic 179 42931216 Acceptable 
19 

Property Value Source 

(MRID) 

Study 

Classification Comments 

metabolism half-life, 

parent (days) (25qC) 

Soil-water sorption 

coefficients, parent (Kd, 

mL/g) 

7.8 clay 

4.4 loam 

1.6 loamy sand 

8.2 sandy clay loam 

5.7 loamy sand 

42436208 Acceptable 

Organic-carbon 

normalized sorption 

coefficients, parent 

(Koc)(mL/goc) 

894 clay 

656 loam 

351 loamy sand 

391 sandy clay loam 

566 loamy sand 

42436208 Acceptable 

Soil-water sorption 

coefficients, degradate 

RH-112651 (Kd, mL/g) 

0.68 clay 

0.68 clay loam 

1.54 loamy sand 

0.34 sand 

42931219 Acceptable 

Organic-carbon 

normalized sorption 

coefficients, degradate 

RH-112651 (Koc)

(mL/gOC) 

78 clay 

111 clay loam 

156 loamy sand 

76 sand 

42931219 Acceptable 

Fish Bioconcentration 

Factor (44 d) 

16x (edible) 

333x (nonedible) 

151x (whole fish) 

42436209 

42931224 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Terrestrial field 

dissipation Half-lives, 

parent (days) 

39-53 422991514 Acceptable 

Bare-ground studies 

in CA sandy loam 

soils 

31, 52 43797703 Supplemental 

Bare-ground studies 

in WA sand and 

NY silt loam. 

Incomplete data 

reported on water 

balance and soil 

taxonomic 

classification.

3.2.1.1. Transport and Mobility 

Tebufenozide is classified as moderately mobile based on organic carbon (OC) partition 

coefficient (Koc) values (351-894 mL/goc) and using the Food and Agricultural Organization 

(FAO) soil mobility classification scheme. The carboxylic acid metabolite RH-112651 is 

classified as mobile to moderately mobile under the FAO scheme based on its Koc values (76-156 

mL/goc). A second carboxylic acid metabolite, RH-112703, and the ketone metabolite RH96595, are also mobile based on column leaching study results. Thus, the parent compound and 

all three major degradates have the potential to contaminate surface water via runoff from treated 

areas after application, through subsurface (e.g., tile drain) flow, and as a consequence of spray 

drift during application. Tebufenozide and its three major degradates also have the potential to 
20 

leach to groundwater. All four were found to have leached to at least the 45 cm soil depth in at 

least one TFD study. 

3.2.1.2. Degradation 

Parent tebufenozide is characterized as persistent to very persistent2

, with laboratory half-lives of 

up to 179 days. Based upon limited data, tebufenozide’s major degradates (RH-112651, RH112703 and RH-96595) appear to be somewhat less persistent than the parent, with calculated 

half-lives for summed degradates ranging from 29.3 to 123.8 days in aerobic soil studies 

conducted using applied parent chemical (under which conditions the decay of degradates is 

confounded by their simultaneous formation from the parent compound). Microbially-mediated 

degradation is the primary dissipation pathway for parent tebufenozide. Parent tebufenozide is 

stable to hydrolysis (pH 5-9) and is expected to be stable to aqueous photolysis based on its UV 

absorbance spectrum. The compound is also relatively stable to indirect photolysis in pond 

water (t1⁄2 = 67 days) and on soil (t1⁄2 = 98 days). No abiotic degradation data are available on any 

of the major degradates. In an aged soil column leaching study, the parent compound was 

present in four soils at approximately 52-71% of the applied after 30 days of aerobic aging. 

Bioaccumulation studies show that the BCF for tebufenozide in fish was 151X for whole-fish 

tissue and showed 90% depuration within 15 days. Although the parent compound has an 

octanol-water partition coefficient of 17,906 and might be expected to bioconcentrate, the 

relatively low measured BCF coupled with the rapid depuration of the compound suggests that 

tebufenozide is metabolized in fish to more polar compounds and readily excreted.

3.2.1.3. Field Studies 

In a terrestrial field dissipation study (MRID 42991514), parent tebufenozide dissipated with 

registrant-calculated half-lives of 39 to 53 days in a California sandy loam soil, from the upper 

15 cm of soil in two bare-ground plots (note that these rates fall within the range of degradation 

half-lives observed in aerobic soils). Degradate RH-96595 was detected in the upper 15 cm at 

both sites, and in the 15-30 cm depth at one of the sites. In a separate, supplemental study 

(MRID 43797703), parent tebufenozide dissipated with registrant-calculated half-lives of 31 and 

52 days from the top 15 cm of soil in bare-ground plots in Washington and New York states, 

respectively. Parent and degradates RH-96595, RH-1126251, and RH-112703 were detected in 

the soil to depths of 45 cm at the New York site. At the Washington site, parent and degradates 

RH-96595 and RH-112703 were detected only within the top 15 cm, although degradate RH112651 was detected at depths of up to 60 cm. 

 

 

2 Based on the Toxic Release Inventory classification system where half-lives greater than 60 days in water, soil, and 

sediment are considered persistent and half-life greater than 6 months are considered very persistent (USEPA, 

2012a) 
21 

3.2.1.4. Transformation Products 

Table 3.4. Table of Tebufenozide and its Major Transformation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies. 

Code Name Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type MRID(s)

Max. %AR 

or conc. 

(mg/kg)

Final %AR (study 

length or last interval 

detected) 

PARENT

Hoe 105540, RH75992

Tebufenozide IUPAC: N-tert-Butyl-Nƍ-(4-ethylbenzoyl)-3,5-dimethylbenzohydrazide. CAS: 3,5-Dimethylbenzoic acid 1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-(4-ethylbenzoyl)hydrazideCAS No. 112410-23-8Formula:C22H28N O2 2

MW: 352.26 g/mol

SMILES Code: C2=CC(CC)=CC=C2C(=O)NN(C(C)(C)C)C(=O)C1=CC(C)=CC(C)=C1 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 42436206

Not Applicable

8.7(365) – CA 

73.6(365) – NJ 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 47881102

9.6 (120) – Speyer 2.1

15(120) – Speyer 2.2 

11.5(120) – Speyer 2.3

8.2(120) – SLV 

Aerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

42436207 5.83-8.77(366) 6.89-10.79(358) 

Anaerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

42931216 30.8(365) 

Hydrolysis 42436204 100(30) 

Soil 

Photolysis 42991512 75(30) Terrestrial 

Field 

Dissipation 

42991514 43797703

<0.0025(365) <0.0025(365) 

MAJOR DEGRADATES 

 RH-112651 Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 42436206 8.61 5.12 1.0(365) – CA 5.12(365) – NJ 

C H3

O

N N

C H3 CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H
22 

Code Name Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type MRID(s)

Max. %AR 

or conc. 

(mg/kg)

Final %AR (study 

length or last interval 

detected) 

IUPAC: (4-[Nc-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-Nc-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)hydrazinocarbonyl]benzoic acid SMILES:C1=CC(=CC=C1C(=O)NN(C(C)(C)C)C(=O)C2=CC(=CC(=C2)C)C)C(=O)O

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 47881102

20.0 12.2 11.3 11.6 

 <2.3(120) –Speyer 2.1<1.5(120) – Speyer 2.2<1.6(120) – Speyer 2.3

<3.8(120) – SLV 

Aerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

42436207 9.48-26.39A 2.57-14.49B 22.92(366)A 14.49(366)B

Anaerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

42931216 15.2C 7.8(365) 

Hydrolysis 42436204 0 0(30) 

Soil 

Photolysis 42991512 0 0(30) 

Terrestrial 

Field 

Dissipation 

42991514 43797703

0.012 

0.10 

<0.0025(365) <0.0025(365) 

 RH-112703 

IUPAC: 4-[Nc-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-Nc-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)hydrazinocarbonyl]phenyl acetic acid 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 42436206 4.47 3.43 ND(365) – CA 2.4(365) – NJ 

SMILES: C(=O)(C1=CC(=CC(=C1)C)C)N(C(C)(C)C)N(C(=O)C2=CC=C(C=C2)CC(=O)O[H])[H] 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 47881102

8.8 4.2 2.6 8.0 

1.4(120) –Speyer 2.1 

1.5(120) – Speyer 2.2 0.8(120) – Speyer 2.3 

1.3(120) – SLV 

Aerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

42436207 7.05-15.53A 2.22-5.57B 0.67(366)A 0.67(366)B

O

N N

C H3 CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H

HO C2

O

N N

C H3 CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H

HO C2
23 

Code Name Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type MRID(s)

Max. %AR 

or conc. 

(mg/kg)

Final %AR (study 

length or last interval 

detected) 

Anaerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

42931216 <2.7 <2.7(365) 

Hydrolysis 42436204 0 0(30) 

Soil 

Photolysis 42991512 0 0(30) 

Terrestrial 

Field 

Dissipation 

42991514 43797703

0.014 0.015 

<0.0025(365) <0.0025(365) 

 RH-96595 

IUPAC: N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-Nc-(4-

acetylbenzoyl)-3,5-dimethylbenzohydrazide SMILES:C1=CC(=CC=C1C(=O)NN(C(C)(C)C)C(=O)C2=CC(=CC(=C2)C)C)C(C)=O

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 42436206 5.92 6.37 1.3(365) – CA 3.6(365) – NJ 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 47881102

5.8 8.6 6.3 7.1 

3.4(120) –Speyer 2.1 

3.9(120) – Speyer 2.2 2.5(120) – Speyer 2.3 

4.6(120) – SLV 

Aerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

42436207 3.24-5.22A 7.81-11.35B 0.57(366)A 2.25(366)B

Anaerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

42931216 9.6 6.3(365) 

Hydrolysis 42436204 0 0(30) 

Soil 

Photolysis 42991512 5.8 5.8(30) 

Terrestrial 

Field 

Dissipation 

42991514 43797703

0.02 0.04 

<0.0025(365) <0.0025(365) 

A In floodwater 

O

N N

C H3 CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H

O

C H3
24 

B In flooded soil C In sediment and floodwater 
25 

3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure 

3.2.2.1. Aquatic Exposure Modeling 

For all non-cranberry uses, tebufenozide aquatic EECs were generated using EFED’s standard 

suite of models. The Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC version 1.106; May 2014) 

model was used to generate EECs of tebufenozide that may occur in surface waters (both 

freshwater and estuarine/marine) impacted by rainfall-runoff and spray drift, where non-target 

organisms can be exposed. All SWCC modeling employed EFED’s standard pond as a proxy for 

exposed water bodies. In this approach runoff (and spray drift) from a 10-hectare cropped 

watershed drains into a 1-hectare pond of 2 meters depth. The approach, which is intended to 

provide a conservative generic representation of surface waters of all kinds, is likely to be 

especially conservative as a representation of marine and estuarine waters. Pore water and 

sediment EECs are reported for the scenario with the highest surface water EECs (e.g., fruiting 

vegetables), other than cranberry. Aquatic EECs for all use scenarios were modeled using the 

TTR approach based on concerns identified in the problem formulation. Select scenarios were 

also modeled for tebufenozide parent only, for characterization. 

For the cranberry use, two different modeling methodologies were employed, for the following 

reason. Some cranberries are grown in bogs that are temporarily flooded to control pests, 

prevent freezing, and/or facilitate harvest. Cranberries may also be grown in settings that more 

closely resemble the cultivation of more widely-grown field crops, in which flooding is not 

employed as a management practice. Water from an intentionally-flooded cranberry bog may be 

held in a holding system, recirculated to other cranberry growing areas, or released to an adjacent 

waterbody (e.g., river, stream, lake).For the use on cranberries wherein deliberate flooding takes 

place, aquatic EECs were generated using the Provisional Cranberry Model. The reported 

concentrations represent water introduced to the field and not mixed with any additional water 

(i.e., in a receiving water body). See Appendix B for a detailed description of this model. To 

account for aquatic exposures that occur as the result of rainfall-runoff that occurs after chemical 

application but before or after deliberate flooding, as well as to represent cranberries that are 

grown and harvested without the use of flooding at all, the SWCC was used to estimate 

tebufenozide TTR, with the OR blueberry scenario as a proxy for cranberry cultivation. 

3.2.2.2. Selection of Crop Scenarios 

The scenarios listed in Table 3.5 are those currently approved for Tier II SWCC modeling which 

most closely represent the labeled uses for tebufenozide, or those which generated the highest 

TTR EECs among all available representative scenarios for uses in which multiple representative 

scenarios were available. Three of the chosen scenarios (canola; fruiting vegetables; and trees, 

forests, shrubs scenarios) were also used to characterize the range of potential aquatic exposures 

to tebufenozide parent only. SWCC model summaries of input parameters, application methods 

and outputs can be found in Appendix C. 

3.2.2.3. Aquatic Modeling Inputs 
26 

Application parameters were chosen based on the likely method of application at the maximum 

application rate as indicated in the label instructions. Chemical property and model input values 

(Table 3.6) were chosen according to the current Input Parameter Guidance, (USEPA 2009).

Based on EFED guidance, aerial spray of liquid formulations are assumed to have 95% 

efficiency and 12.5% spray drift, and ground spray is expected to have 99% efficiency and 6.6% 

spray drift. Based on the proposed uses for tebufenozide, a variety of locations and SWCC 

scenarios were run to simulate national use of the pesticide. Details of simulated scenarios are 

provided in Appendix C. 

Table 3.5. Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Tebufenozide Ecological Exposure Assessment (SWCC) 

Use SWCC Scenario1 Application

Method 

Single Applic. Rate 

(lbs a.i./A) [kg/ha] 

Number of 

Applications

First Applic. 

Date 

Bushberries, 

Caneberries 

ORberriesOP Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 4 5/15 

Canola NDcanolaSTD Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 4 5/15 

Citrus FLcitrusSTD Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 5 5/15 

Brassica FLcabbageSTD Aerial/foliar 0.12 [0.135 ] 15 2/15 

Cotton MScottonSTD, Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 4 5/15 

Cranberry ORberriesOP Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 4 5/15 

Fruiting 

vegetables 

FLpeppersSTD Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 8 5/15 

Mint ORmintSTD Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 8 5/15 

Ornamentals FLnurserySTD_V2 Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 8 5/15 

Pome fruit NCappleSTD Aerial/foliar 0.31 [0.347] 6 5/15 

Sugarcane LAsugarcaneSTD Aerial/foliar 0.25 [0.28 ] 8 5/15 

Almonds, 

Walnuts, Other 

nuts 

CAalmondWirrigS

TD 

Aerial/foliar 

0.47 [0.527] 4 5/15 

Pecans GAPecansSTD Aerial/foliar 0.26 [0.291] 7 5/15 

Trees, Forests, 

Shrubs 

FLnurserySTD_V2 Aerial/foliar 0.12 [0.135] 2 5/15 

Pasture, 

rangeland 

 RangeBSS Aerial/foliar 0.125 [0.14] 4 5/15 

1 This column shows the actual scenario (file) names for scenarios used to generate EECs using the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC). The general syntax for scenario names reflects the state_use site_scenario type_version 

(if applicable). For example, ORberriesOP reflects a scenario originally developed to model Oregon (OR) berries for 

organophosphate (OP) pesticides. 
27 

Table 3.6. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Tebufenozide Ecological Exposure 

Assessment (SWCC and Provisional Cranberry Models).

Input Parameter TTR Parent

only 

Source/comment 

Hydrolysis half-life (t1⁄2 in 

days) 0 (stable) 0 (stable) MRID 42436204 

Aqueous Photolysis half-life 

(t1⁄2 in days) 0 (stable) 0 (stable) MRID 42436205 

Aerobic Soil metabolism 

half-life (t1⁄2 in days) 93.1 92.1 

MRIDs 42436206, 47881102. Represents the 90 

percent upper confidence limit on the mean of 5 aerobic 

soil metabolism half-life values for TTR ( parent plus 

degradates RH-112651, RH-112703, and RH-965951, 2) 

and parent only, respectively. 

Aerobic Aquatic metabolism 

half-life (t1⁄2 in days) 553.2 135.3 

MRID 42436207. Represents the 90 percent upper 

confidence limit on the mean of two half-life values for 

TTR (parent plus degradates RH-112651, RH-112703, 

and RH-96595) and parent only in aerobic silty clay 

soil:water and clay loam soil:water systems. 

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism half-life (t1⁄2 in 

days) 

537 537 

MRID 42931216. Represents three times the single 

available whole-system half-life (179 days) for parent3

in an anaerobic silt-loam sediment:pond water system. 

Soil partition coefficient Koc

(mL/g) 105 572 

MRID 42931219. Mean of four Koc values for degradate 

RH-112651 [used to represent TTR because it is more 

conservative (lower) than available Koc values for parent 

tebufenozide] and for parent only. 1 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm 2 Calculation excludes NJ sandy loam soil 

3 Half-lives based on parent + degradates were not employed for this input because although degradates were formed in these 

studies, their inclusion was found to have minor influence on EECs. 

3.2.2.4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations in Surface Water 

Surface water EECs for tebufenozide TTR are presented in Table 3.9. Surface water EECs for 

tebufenozide parent only are presented in Table 3.10, for characterization. In all SWCC 

scenarios, aerial application produced higher EECs than ground application. The output file 

from the model runs including the scenario (LA sugarcane) that produced the highest EECs is 

provided in Appendix C. 

Table 3.9. Tebufenozide TTR EECs for Surface Water 

Use Scenario1 Application

Method 

1-in-10 year 1-

day (“peak”) 

mean (μg/L) 

1-in-10 year 21-

day mean 

(μg/L) 

1-in-10 year 60-

day mean 

(μg/L) 

Bushberries, 

Caneberries ORberriesOP 

aerial 37.2 36.8 36.2 

ground 20.5 20.3 20.0 

Canola NDcanolaSTD 

aerial 58.6 57.9 56.8 

ground 40.1 39.6 38.7 

Citrus FLcitrusSTD 

aerial 60.4 59.2 58.1 

ground 51.6 50.8 49.7 

Brassica FLcabbageSTD aerial 90.8 89.4 86.8 
28 

Use Scenario1 Application

Method 

1-in-10 year 1-

day (“peak”) 

mean (μg/L) 

1-in-10 year 21-

day mean 

(μg/L) 

1-in-10 year 60-

day mean 

(μg/L) 

ground 78.8 77.4 75.1 

Cotton MScottonSTD 

aerial 59.6 58.8 56.8 

ground 49.9 49.5 47.8 

Cranberry ORberriesOP 

aerial 37.4 37.0 36.5 

ground 20.5 20.3 20.0 

Fruiting 

vegetables FLpeppersSTD 

aerial 112 111 108 

ground 99.4 98.1 95.8 

Mint ORmintSTD 

aerial 73.0 72.2 71.4 

ground 40.4 39.9 39.5 

Ornamentals FLnurserySTD_V2 

aerial 84.9 83.4 81.8 

ground 70.9 69.7 68.3 

Pome fruit NCappleSTD 

aerial 96.4 95.2 93.5 

ground 72.2 71.6 60.0 

Sugarcane LAsugarcaneSTD 

aerial 86.7 85.7 84.3 

ground 79.6 78.6 76.9 

Almonds, 

Walnuts, Other 

nuts 

CAalmondWirrigSTD 

aerial 59.6 58.9 57.6 

ground 35.2 34.9 34.1 

Pecans GAPecansSTD 

aerial 69.9 69.0 67.6 

ground 52.0 51.3 50.2 

Trees, Forests, 

Shrubs FLnurserySTD_V2 

aerial 12.4 12.1 11.7 

ground 10.6 10.3 10.0 

Pasture, 

rangeland RangeBSS 

aerial 30.6 30.2 29.6 

ground 26.5 26.3 25.8 

Cranberry Provisional Cranberry 

Model2 NA 279 106 106 

1 This column shows the actual scenario (file) names for scenarios used to generate EECs using the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC). The general syntax for scenario names reflects the state_use site_scenario 

type_version (if applicable). For example, ORberriesOP reflects a scenario originally developed to model Oregon (OR) 

berries for organophosphate (OP) pesticides.

2

 Not a SWCC scenario. Reflects a 21-day holding time, post-flood. See Appendix C for details. 

Table 3.10. Tebufenozide Parent-Only EECs for Surface Water (Selected Uses) 

Use Scenario1 Application

Method 

1-in-10 year 1-

day (“peak”) 

mean (μg/L) 

1-in-10 year 21-

day mean 

(μg/L) 

1-in-10 year 60-

day mean 

(μg/L) 

Canola NDcanolaSTD 

aerial 18.4 17.2 16.2 

ground 13.0 12.0 10.9 

Fruiting 

vegetables FLpeppersSTD 

aerial 46.0 42.1 39.4 

ground 42.5 38.7 36.3 

Trees, Forests, 

Shrubs FLnurserySTD_V2 

aerial 7.44 6.67 5.81 

ground 6.67 5.99 5.29 
29 

1 This column shows the actual scenario (file) names for scenarios used to generate EECs using the Surface Water Concentration 

Calculator (SWCC). The general syntax for scenario names reflects the state_use site_scenario type_version (if applicable). For 

example, ORberriesOP reflects a scenario originally developed to model Oregon (OR) berries for organophosphate (OP) 

pesticides.

3.2.2.4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations in the 

Benthic Region 

In the benthic region, the SWCC indicates that tebufenozide dissipation is negligible (Appendix

C). The main source of dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism. The effective average 

benthic half-lives for tebufenozide TTR range from 577.6 days (e.g., fruiting vegetables) to 

1,571 days (e.g., canola). The majority (91.9%) of tebufenozide TTR in the benthic region is 

sorbed to sediment rather than in the pore water. There is no difference between the one-in-tenyear peak and 21-day moving average values for benthic TTR EECs. For the use on fruiting 

vegetables, the pore water EEC is 96.3 ug/L and the sediment EEC is 440 ug/kg dry sediment.

3.2.2.5. Monitoring Data 

Only limited monitoring data are available for tebufenozide. EFED conducted a search (January 

27, 2015) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) 

Program database (http://cida.usgs.gov/nawqa_queries_public/), the USGS Community Water 

System (CWS) data (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/544/), the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (CDPR) surface water and sediment database 

(http://cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfcont.htm), and the EPA/USGS National Water Quality 

Monitoring Council (NWQMC) Water Quality Portal database 

(http://www.waterqualitydata.us/). The CWS, CDPR and Water Quality Portal databases do not 

include any records of tebufenozide as a sampled constituent. The NAWQA database lists 

tebufenozide as a constituent, and includes records of 11 “filtered” samples collected from the 

Rio Grande River, near Brownsville, TX, on various dates in 2013. All results are listed as “<2 

ng/L,” which presumably reflects the analytical method limit of quantitation.

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure 

 

3.2.3.1. Ingestion of Dietary Residues by Birds and Mammals 

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals by 

emphasizing the dietary exposure route of uptake of pesticide active ingredients. These 

exposures are considered to be surrogates for exposures to terrestrial-phase amphibians and 

reptiles. For exposures to terrestrial organisms, such as birds and mammals, pesticide residues 

on food items are estimated based on the assumption that organisms are exposed to pesticide 

residues as a function of the pesticide use pattern. Tebufenozide is applied in spray form, using 

ground or aerial equipment. Therefore, potential dietary exposure for terrestrial wildlife in this 

assessment is based on consumption of tebufenozide residues on food items following spray 

applications. 
30 

T-REX (v. 1.5.2) is used to calculate dietary and dose-based EECs of tebufenozide residues on 

food items for mammals and birds generated by spray applications for the labeled uses. Input 

values for deriving EECs using T-REX are located in Table 3.11. Upper-bound Kenaga 

nomogram values are used to derive peak (point-in-time) EECs for tebufenozide exposures to 

terrestrial mammals and birds (Table 3.12, Table 3.13, and Table 3.14), based on tebufenozide 

use within a 1-year time period. Consideration is given to different types of feeding strategies 

for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. Dose-based exposures are 

estimated for three weight classes of birds (20 g, 100 g, and 1000 g) and three weight classes of 

mammals (15 g, 35 g, and 1000 g). 

Differences in exposures between ground and aerial applications cannot be assessed with the 

current T-REX model; exposure and risk estimates from the T-REX model are considered 

relevant to both application scenarios. Other uncertainties in the terrestrial EECs are primarily 

associated with a lack of data on interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces. 

Foliar dissipation data specific to tebufenozide are not available in Willis and McDowell (1987) 

or in magnitude of residue data submitted under OCSPP Guideline 860.1500. When data are 

absent, as in this case, EFED assumes a default 35-day foliar dissipation half-life, based on the 

work of Willis and McDowell (1987). An example output from the T-REX model is provided in 

Appendix D. 

Table 3.11. Input Parameters for Deriving Screening-Level Terrestrial EECs for Tebufenozide (T-REX v. 

1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Use(s) 

Maximum 

Single App. Rate 

(lbs a.i./A) 

Minimum Reapplication 

Interval (days)

Maximum 

No. of App.1, 2

Foliar 

Dissipation 

Half-Life

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries 0.25 7 4 

353

Caneberries 0.25 10 4 

Canola 0.25 10 4 

Citrus 0.25 14 5 

Cole crops and leafy 

vegetables 0.12 10 15 

Cotton 0.25 10 4 

Cranberries 0.25 7 4 

Fruiting vegetables 0.25 10 8 

Mint 0.25 10 8 

Pastures and rangeland 0.13 10 4 

Pome fruits 0.31 7 6 

Sugarcane 0.25 10 4 

Tree nuts (almond, 

walnut, other nuts) 0.47 10 4 

Tree nuts (pecan) 0.25 8 84

Non-agricultural Uses 

Ornamentals 0.25 10 8 353

Forest, trees and shrubs 0.122 5 2 

Abbreviations: App., Application(s). 

1 The maximum number of applications at the maximum single application rate, based on the maximum annual application 

rate. Values are rounded up to the next higher integer. The last application is modeled at a lower rate when necessary to 

avoid exceeding the maximum annual application rate. 

2

 Based on registrant-supplied use summary table dated January 13, 2015. 

3 The default foliar dissipation half-life value of 35 days is used in the absence of foliar dissipation data. 
31 

Use(s) 

Maximum 

Single App. Rate 

(lbs a.i./A) 

Minimum Reapplication 

Interval (days)

Maximum 

No. of App.1, 2

Foliar 

Dissipation 

Half-Life 4 Assumes seven applications at 0.25 lbs ai/A and one application at 0.15 lbs ai/A to achieve the maximum annual rate of 1.9 

lbs ai/A. 
32 

Table 3.12. Screening-level Dose-based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians from Labeled Uses 

of Tebufenozide (T-REX v. 1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Primary Feeding 

Strategy Æ Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores 

Animal Size Æ Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large 

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf s Plant

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds, Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc. Use(s) È

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries 225 103 126 14.0 128 58.7 72.1 8.01 57.4 26.3 32.3 3.59 88.0 50.2 22.5 3.12 1.78 0.80 Caneberries 208 95.4 117 13.0 119 54.4 66.8 7.42 53.1 24.4 29.9 3.32 81.5 46.5 20.8 2.89 1.65 0.74 Canola 208 95.4 117 13.0 119 54.4 66.8 7.42 53.1 24.4 29.9 3.32 81.5 46.5 20.8 2.89 1.65 0.74 Citrus 212 97.0 119 13.2 121 55.3 67.9 7.54 54.0 24.8 30.4 3.38 82.9 47.3 21.2 2.94 1.68 0.75 Cole crops and leafy vegetables 173 79.4 97.4 10.8 98.8 45.3 55.6 6.17 44.2 20.3 24.9 2.76 67.8 38.7 17.3 2.41 1.37 0.61 Cotton 208 95.4 117 13.0 119 54.4 66.8 7.42 53.1 24.4 29.9 3.32 81.5 46.5 20.8 2.89 1.65 0.74 Cranberries 225 103 126 14.0 128 58.7 72.1 8.01 57.4 26.3 32.3 3.59 88.0 50.2 22.5 3.12 1.78 0.80 Fruiting vegetables 302 139 170 18.9 172 79.0 97.0 10.8 77.2 35.4 43.4 4.82 118 67.5 30.2 4.20 2.39 1.07 Mint 302 139 170 18.9 172 79.0 97.0 10.8 77.2 35.4 43.4 4.82 118 67.5 30.2 4.20 2.39 1.07 Pome fruits 370 169 208 23.1 211 96.6 119 13.2 94.4 43.3 53.1 5.90 145 82.6 37.0 5.13 2.83 1.31 Pastures and rangeland 108 49.6 60.9 6.76 61.7 28.3 34.7 3.86 27.6 12.7 15.5 1.73 42.4 24.2 10.8 1.50 0.86 0.38 Sugarcane 208 95.4 117 13.0 119 54.4 66.8 7.42 53.1 24.4 29.9 3.32 81.5 46.5 20.8 2.89 1.65 0.74 Tree nuts (almond, walnut, other nuts) 391 179 220 24.5 223 102 125 13.9 99.9 45.8 56.2 6.24 153 87.4 39.1 5.43 3.10 1.39 Tree nuts (pecan) 313 143 176 19.5 178 81.7 100 11.1 79.8 36.6 44.9 4.99 122 69.8 31.3 4.34 2.48 1.11 

Non-agricultural Uses

Ornamentals 302 139 170 18.9 172 79.0 97.0 10.8 77.2 35.4 43.4 4.82 118 67.5 30.2 4.20 2.39 1.07 Forest, trees and shrubs 62.5 28.7 35.2 3.91 35.6 16.3 20.1 2.23 16.0 7.31 8.98 1.00 24.5 14.0 6.25 0.87 0.50 0.22 
33 

Table 3.13. Screening-level Dose-based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Mammals from Labeled Uses of Tebufenozide (T-REX v. 1.5.2; June 6, 

2013). 

Primary Feeding 

Strategy Æ Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores 

Animal Size Æ Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf s Plant

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds, Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc. Use(s) È

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries 188 86.2 106 11.8 130 59.6 73.1 8.13 30.1 13.8 17.0 1.88 73.7 50.9 11.8 2.61 1.81 0.42 Caneberries 174 79.9 98.0 10.9 120 55.2 67.7 7.53 27.9 12.8 15.7 1.74 68.2 47.2 10.9 2.42 1.67 0.39 Canola 174 79.9 98.0 10.9 120 55.2 67.7 7.53 27.9 12.8 15.7 1.74 68.2 47.2 10.9 2.42 1.67 0.39 Citrus 177 81.2 99.7 11.1 122 56.1 68.9 7.65 28.4 13.0 16.0 1.77 69.4 48.0 11.1 2.46 1.70 0.39 Cole crops and leafy vegetables 145 66.5 81.6 9.06 100 45.9 56.4 6.26 23.2 10.7 13.1 1.45 56.8 39.2 9.10 2.01 1.39 0.32 Cotton 174 79.9 98.0 10.9 120 55.2 67.7 7.53 27.9 12.8 15.7 1.74 68.2 47.2 10.9 2.42 1.67 0.39 Cranberries 188 86.2 106 11.8 130 59.6 73.1 8.13 30.1 13.8 17.0 1.88 73.7 50.9 11.8 2.61 1.81 0.42 Fruiting vegetables 253 116 142 15.8 175 80.2 98.4 10.9 40.6 18.6 22.8 2.53 99.1 68.5 15.9 3.52 2.43 0.56 Mint 253 116 142 15.8 175 80.2 98.4 10.9 40.6 18.6 22.8 2.53 99.1 68.5 15.9 3.52 2.43 0.56 Pastures and rangeland 90.6 41.5 51.0 5.66 62.6 28.7 35.2 3.91 14.5 6.65 8.17 0.91 35.5 24.5 5.69 1.26 0.87 0.20 Pome fruits 310 142 174 19.3 214 98.0 120 13.4 49.6 22.7 27.9 3.10 121 83.8 19.4 4.3 2.97 0.69 Sugarcane 174 79.9 98.0 10.9 120 55.2 67.7 7.53 27.9 12.8 15.7 1.74 68.2 47.2 10.9 2.42 1.67 0.39 Tree nuts (almond, walnut, other nuts) 328 150 184 20.5 226 104 127 14.2 52.5 24.1 29.5 3.28 128 88.7 20.6 4.55 3.14 0.73 Tree nuts (pecan) 262 120 147 16.4 181 19.2 23.6 2.62 41.9 19.2 23.6 2.62 102 70.8 16.4 3.63 2.51 0.58 

Non-agricultural Uses

Ornamentals 253 116 142 15.8 175 80.2 98.4 10.9 40.6 18.6 22.8 2.53 99.1 68.5 15.9 3.52 2.43 0.56 Forest, trees and shrubs 52.3 24.0 29.4 3.27 36.2 16.6 20.3 2.26 8.39 3.84 4.72 0.52 20.5 14.2 3.28 0.73 0.50 0.12 
34 

Table 3.14. Screening-level Dietary-based EECs (mg/kg diet) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles, 

Terrestrial-phase Amphibians, and Mammals from Labeled Uses of Tebufenozide (T-REX v. 

1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Primary Feeding Strategy Æ Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods 

Use(s) È

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries 197 90.4 111 12.3 77.3 

Caneberries 183 83.8 103 11.4 71.6 

Canola 183 83.8 103 11.4 71.6 

Citrus 186 85.2 105 11.6 72.8 

Cole crops and leafy vegetables 152 69.7 85.5 9.50 59.6 

Cotton 183 83.8 103 11.4 71.6 

Cranberries 197 90.4 111 12.3 77.3 

Fruiting vegetables 265 122 149 16.6 104 

Mint 265 122 149 16.6 104 

Pastures and rangeland 95.0 43.6 53.5 5.94 37.2 

Pome fruits 325 149 183 20.3 127 

Sugarcane 183 83.8 103 11.4 71.6 

Tree nuts (almond, walnut, other nuts) 344 157 193 21.5 135 

Tree nuts (pecan) 274 126 154 17.2 107 

Non-agricultural Uses

Ornamentals 265 122 149 16.6 104 

Forest, trees and shrubs 54.9 25.2 30.9 3.43 21.5 

3.2.3.2. Runoff and Spray Drift to Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic 

Plants

Exposure of non-target terrestrial and semi-aquatic (wetland) plant species is estimated using 

OPP’s TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2) model. Loading via spray drift to dry, non-target, adjacent areas is 

assumed to occur from one acre of treated land to one acre of the non-target area. Runoff is also 

expected to be a source of pesticide loading to non-target areas. TerrPlant calculates EECs as a 

function of application rate, solubility, and default assumptions regarding spray drift. The 

default spray drift assumptions are 1% of the application rate for ground spray applications and 

5% for aerial spray applications (USEPA 2006b). The EECs for terrestrial and semi-aquatic 

plants for a single application of tebufenozide at the maximum labeled rate (i.e., to tree nuts) are 

presented in Table 3-15 (see example output in Appendix E). Non-target terrestrial plant EECs 

for all other uses (based on a single application) are expected to be less than the values for tree 

nuts. 
35 

Table 3.15. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants Near Tebufenozide Use Areas (TerrPlant v. 1.2.2). 

Crop 

Single Max. 

Application

Rate 

(lbs ai/A) 

EECs (lbs ai/A) 

Spray Drift Only 

 Runoff and 

Spray Drift 

(Dry Areas) 

Runoff and 

Spray Drift 

(Semi-Aquatic Areas) 

Ground 

spray

Aerial

spray

Ground 

spray

Aerial

spray

Ground 

spray

Aerial

spray

Agricultural Uses

Tree nuts1 0.47 0.0047 0.024 0.0094 0.028 0.052 0.071 

1 Based on the maximum single application rate for the use on tree nuts (almond, walnut, and other nuts).

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization 

The ecological effects characterization for tebufenozide is based upon registrant-submitted 

toxicity data for the TGAI and for specified formulations. Appendix I lists these studies, their 

review classifications, and associated deficiencies. The ecotoxicity data for tebufenozide and its 

associated products have been reviewed previously in multiple ecological risk assessments (e.g., 

USEPA 2007, 2005) and in a Preliminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review 

(USEPA 2008). These data are summarized briefly in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Various studies 

with terrestrial and aquatic plants, birds, and aquatic animals exposed to either the TGAI or 

formulated tebufenozide have been received since the Problem Formulation was issued; the 

results of these studies are described briefly in this section. Ecotoxicity data recently submitted 

for tebufenozide degradates indicate that these degradates are generally equally or less toxic than 

parent tebufenozide to freshwater fish, invertebrates, and algae.

The results of a 2014 review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) are described 

in Section 3.3.3 (USEPA 2014). A search of the ECOTOXicology database on June 3, 2014, 

yielded no new data from suitable studies with more sensitive toxicity endpoints than the 

registrant-submitted guideline studies described below. The endpoints from the ECOTOXcatalogued open literature studies are provided in Attachment 2, for reference. 

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment 

A summary of the most sensitive aquatic toxicity data for tebufenozide, based on a current 

Agency review of all submitted data, is provided in Table 3.16 through Table 3.24 and 

discussed further in Sections 3.3.1.1 through 3.3.1.5. The available data indicate that 

tebufenozide TGAI is moderately toxic to freshwater fish (and thus to aquatic amphibians) and to 

freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Tebufenozide is 

highly toxic to estuarine/marine fish. Chronic exposure to tebufenozide affected reproductive 

endpoints in freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates. The NOAEL values for freshwater 

vascular and nonvascular plants were equal to the highest concentrations tested. The endpoints 

affected by tebufenozide exposure are described in more detail below. 
36 

3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

As shown in Table 3.16, tebufenozide TGAI is moderately toxic to bluegill sunfish (Lepomis 

macrochirus) and the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under acute exposure conditions 

(MRIDs 42436239 and -40). The acute toxicity values reported for the TGAI exceed the 

solubility limit (830 μg ai/L) and reflect the enhanced solubility obtained through the use of a cosolvent. Tebufenozide degradates have been tested up to their apparent limits of water solubility 

and have shown no acute toxicity to freshwater fish; they are classified as no more than 

moderately toxic based on the upper limit of concentrations tested (MRIDs 47926502, -03, -04, 

and -09). 

Table 3.16. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Tebufenozide and its 

Degradates. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

LC50

(μg/L) 1 

(95% CL) 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis 

macrochirus) 

96-hr, static TGAI (96.1%) 3,0002

(2,200-4,000) 

Moderately toxic 

(42436239) 

96-hr, static RH-112,651 (100%) 

Degradate >4,6903

 (N/A) 

No more than 

moderately toxic 

(47926502) 

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) 

96-hr, static TGAI (96.1%) 5,3804 

(4,580-6,590) 

Moderately toxic 

(42436240) 

96-hr, static RH-112,651 (94.7%) 

Degradate >4,4003

 (N/A) 

No more than 

moderately toxic 

 (47926503) 

96-hr, static RH-96,595 (96.8%) 

Degradate

>1,4005,6

(N/A) 

No more than 

moderately toxic 

(47926504) 

96-hr, static RH-112,703 (82.9%) 

Degradate

>5,4007,8

(N/A) 

No more than 

moderately toxic 

(47926509) 

Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. LC50: Lethal concentration to 50% of the population. N/A: Not applicable or 

available. 

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater fish exposed to parent tebufenozide. 1

 Based on mean measured concentrations, unless otherwise indicated. 

2

 Precipitate was observed in the three highest treatment levels (5,700, 9,400, and 18,000 μg a.i./L, mean measured) and they were excluded 

from the analysis. 

3

 Water solubility was estimated as 5.3 mg/L (EPI SuiteTM v. 4.0). 4

 Precipitate was observed at the four highest treatment levels (4,700, 7,200, 10,000, and 17,000 μg a.i./L, mean measured); the two highest 

treatment levels were excluded from analysis. 

5

 Precipitate was observed at the two highest treatment levels (2,300 and 3,700 μg/L) and they were excluded from the analysis. 6

 Water solubility was estimated as 8.0 mg/L (EPI SuiteTM v. 4.0). 7

 Precipitate was observed at the highest treatment level (5,400 μg/L). 8

 Water solubility was estimated as 10,400 μg/L (EPI SuiteTM v. 4.0). 

Although an early life stage toxicity test with fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) resulted 

in a definitive NOAEC of 360 μg ai/L, a fish full life cycle study with the same species failed to 

establish a NOAEC (NOAEC<48 μg ai/L) for the most sensitive endpoint (i.e., number of eggs 

per spawn) and was confounded by significant differences between the solvent and negative 

controls. Subsequently, the registrant submitted a fathead minnow short-term reproduction assay 

consistent with OCSPP Guideline 890.1350 and OECD 229 (MRID 48702201). The assay 

identified a slight-but-statistically significant (p<0.05) advance in ovarian stage, i.e., a 
37 

histological indication of treatment-related difference in the female reproductive cycle, at 

concentrations of 101 μg ai/L and above (NOAEC=51.1 μg ai/L). No effects were observed on 

other reproductive parameters, body weight, or survival. (Table 3.17). 

Table 3.17. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

NOAEC 

LOAEC

(μg/L) 1

Endpoints 

(MRID) 

Fathead minnow 

(Pimephales 

promelas) 

35-day, flowthrough, early 

life stage 

TGAI (97.5%) 360 

7102

Juvenile survival 

(42436242) 

21-day, flow 

through, short 

term 

reproduction 

TGAI (98.9%) 51.1 

101 

Ovarian stage 

(48702201) 

219-day, flowthrough, full 

life cycle 

TGAI (96.1%) <48 

48 

Number of eggs 

per spawn 

(44221901) 

Bolded values are used in risk estimation. 

Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL:Confidence limits. 1 Based on mean measured concentrations. 

2 Water solubility was reported in the study as 840 μg/L. 

3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 

Technical-grade tebufenozide is moderately toxic to freshwater invertebrates (daphnid, Daphnia 

magna) on an acute exposure basis (MRID 42436241). One tebufenozide end-use product (EP) 

has been tested with daphnid: the water miscible formulation (HOE 105540 240 g/L3

, 24.5% a.i.) 

is slightly toxic (MRID 43699701). Tebufenozide degradates have shown no acute toxicity to 

daphnid when tested up to their apparent limits of water solubility; they are classified as no more 

than moderately toxic based on the upper limit of concentrations tested (MRIDs 47926501, -05, 

and -07). (Table 3.18). An open literature study with first-instar larvae of the caddisfly 

(Cheumatopsyche brevilineata) determined a 48-hour immobilization EC50 of 830 ug a.i./L 

(ECOTOX No. E152279). The endpoint is used in risk characterization but not in risk 

estimation (e.g., for RQ calculation) for sediment-associated organisms because exposure 

concentrations were only reported in terms of overlying water. 

 

3

 Formulation name as identified in the study report. 
38 

Table 3.18. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Tebufenozide and its 

Degradates. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

EC50

(μg/L)1 

(95% CL) 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

Water flea 

(Daphnia magna) 

48-hr, static TGAI (96.1%) 3,8002,3 

(2,900-5,100) 

Moderately toxic 

(42436241) 

48-hr, static EP (24.5%) 

HOE 105540 

12,0004

(8,000-30,000)5

Slightly toxic 

(43699701) 

48-hr, static RH-112,703 (83%) 

Degradate >5,500 (N/A) 

No more than 

moderately toxic 

(47926501) 

48-hr, static RH-112,651 (94.7%) 

Degradate >5,200 (N/A) 

No more than 

moderately toxic 

(47926507) 

48-hr, static RH-96,595 (96.8%) 

Degradate >1,5006

 (N/A) 

No more than 

moderately toxic 

(47926505) 

Caddisfly 

(Cheumatopsyche 

brevilineata) 

Nonguideline, 

48-hr TGAI (> 99%) 830 (NR) Highly toxic 

(E152279) 

Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL:Confidence limits. EP: End-use product. N/A: Not available or applicable. 

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater invertebrates exposed to parent tebufenozide. 1 Based on mean-measured concentrations, unless otherwise indicated. 2 Precipitate or cloudiness was observed in the four highest treatment levels (1,800, 4,700, 6,400, and 35,000 μg ai/L, mean 

measured); the highest treatment level was excluded from analysis. 

3 Water solubility was reported as 830 μg/L. 4 Based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity of test substance (% ai). 

5 Probit slope reported as 1.9. 

6 Precipitate was observed at the two highest treatment levels (1,800 and 4,600 μg/L, mean measured); these treatments were 

excluded from the analysis.

Growth (reduced dry weight) was the most sensitive chronic toxicity endpoint in daphnids 

exposed to technical-grade tebufenozide in a life cycle study (Table 3.19); reproductive 

endpoints, including reduced number of offspring per female, and reduced survival were detected 

at higher test concentrations (MRID 42436243). A separate study with formulated tebufenozide 

(HOE 1055404

) also identified reductions in the number of offspring at lower test concentrations 

(when adjusted for purity) than the test with TGAI (MRID 43699702). 

A nonguideline emergence study with the benthic invertebrate midge (Chironomus riparius) 

showed that tebufenozide exposure delayed development and adult emergence, particularly in 

males, at all treatment levels (i.e., NOAEC< 3.3 μg/L in overlying water, <0.44 ug/L in pore 

water; MRID 44198301). Tassou and Schulz (E166013, 2013)5

 followed a similar 28-day test 

design with two successive generations of midge and detected significantly lower fertility at 

mean-measured concentrations of 13 ug ai/L in overlying water, which corresponded to 1.1 ug 

ai/L pore water. Tebufenozide treatment alone did not affect development or emergence, 

although differences were seen among the parental and offspring generations. Comparisons 

were made only to a solvent control (0.84 uL/L dimethyl sulfoxide, DMSO) in the open literature 

 

4

 Formulation name as identified in the study report. 

5

 Throughout this document, “E” preceding a reference number indicates an ECOTOX database identification 

number. 
39 

study (E166013)6

. In both experiments, there are uncertainties regarding actual exposure 

because tebufenozide was spiked into overlying water instead of directly into sediment, and 

changes in measured concentrations over time demonstrate that the test systems had not reached 

equilibrium prior to test initiation. Given these uncertainties, the data in these two studies are not 

used for risk estimation. 

Table 3.19. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

NOAEC 

LOAEC

(μg ai/L) 

Endpoints 

(MRID) 

Water flea 

(Daphnia magna) 

21-day, flowthrough TGAI (97.5%) 291

59 

Dry weight 

(42436243) 

21-day, flowthrough EP (24.5%) 

HOE 105540

7.82

13.7 

Number of 

offspring 

(43699702) 

Midge 

(Chironomus 

riparius) 

Nonguideline 

28-day, static TGAI (96.1%) 

Overlying 

water: 

<3.3 

3.33

Pore water: 

<0.44 

0.443

Sediment 

(ug/kg dry 

sediment): 

< 5.5 

5.53

Development rate, 

emergence 

(44198301) 

Nonguideline 

28-day, static TGAI (99.9%) 

Overlying 

water: 

6.4 

134 

Pore water: 

0.1 

1.14

Fertility 

(E166013) 

Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL:Confidence limits. EP: End-use product. N/A: Not applicable or available. 

Bolded values are used in risk estimation. 1 Based on mean measured concentrations. 

2 Based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate). 

3 Based on time-weighted average concentrations. 

4

 Based on arithmetic mean-measured concentrations and comparison to solvent control (0.84 uL/L DMSO), 

3.3.1.3. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish

No adverse effects were observed in sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) acutely 

exposed to tebufenozide TGAI at concentrations approaching its limit of solubility in freshwater 

(MRID 42991504) of 830 μg ai/L; its solubility in estuarine/marine environments would likely 

be reduced. Tebufenozide is classified as no more than highly toxic to sheepshead minnow based 

 

6

 Throughout this document, “E” preceding a reference number indicates an ECOTOX database identification 

number. 
40 

on the upper limit of concentrations tested (Table 3.20). Growth (juvenile length) was reduced 

in an early life stage test with the same species (MRID 44080901). No other effects were 

observed (Table 3.21). 

Table 3.20. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Fish Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

LC50

(μg/L) 1 

(95% CL) 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyprinodon 

variegatus) 

96-hr, flowthrough TGAI (97.5%) >7202

 (NA) 

No more than 

highly toxic 

(42991504) CL Confidence limits, NA Not available.

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine fish exposed to parent tebufenozide. 1 Based on mean measured concentrations. 

2 Water solubility was reported as 830 μg/L.

Table 3.21. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Fish Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

NOAEC 

LOAEC

(μg/L) 1

Endpoints 

(MRID) 

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyprinodon 

variegatus) 

32-day, flowthrough, 

early life stage 

TGAI (96.1%) 550 

1,200 

Juvenile length 

(44080901) 

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine fish exposed to parent tebufenozide. 1 Based on mean measured concentrations

3.3.1.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Tebufenozide TGAI is moderately toxic to estuarine/marine crustaceans (MRID 42991505) and 

highly toxic to molluscs (MRID 42087701), based on acute toxicity tests with the mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis bahia) and eastern oyster (Crassotrea virginica), respectively (Table 3.22). One 

mortality and one abnormality (i.e., lost claw) were seen in young adult lobsters (Homarus 

americanus) exposed to formulated tebufenozide (Confirm® 2F, 23.2% a.i.) at concentrations up 

to 76 μg a.i./L; it was unclear whether the effects in this nonguideline study were treatmentrelated given that they were limited in number and only observed in the highest test 

concentration, and a definitive EC50 value was not determined (MRID 44945701). The young 

adult life stage tested in the lobster may not be sensitive to the type of effects generally 

associated with an insect growth regulator (e.g., effects on molting). 

Table 3.22. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

EC50 or IC50

(μg/L)1 

(95% CL) 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

Mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis 

bahia formerly 

Mysidopsis bahia) 

96-hr, static TGAI (97.5%) 1,400 

(820-2,200) 

Moderately toxic 

(42991505) 

Eastern oyster 

(Crassotrea 

virginica) 

96-hr, flowthrough, shell 

deposition 

TGAI (97.5%) 505 

(436-589) 

Highly toxic 

(42807701) 

Northern lobster Nonguideline, EP (23.2%) >76 Very highly toxic2
41 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

EC50 or IC50

(μg/L)1 

(95% CL) 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

(Homarus 

americanus) 

96-hr, flowthrough 

Confirm® 2F (NA) (44945701) 

CL Confidence limits, EP End-use product, NA Not available. 

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine invertebrates. 1 Based on mean-measured concentrations. 

2 Based on the upper limit of concentrations tested. One mortality and one abnormality (lost claw) were observed at the 

highest test concentration. 

Adverse effects on survival and reproduction (number of offspring) were observed at all test 

concentrations in mysid shrimp (Americamysis bahia) exposed to tebufenozide TGAI in a 28-day 

life cycle study (MRID 42991505). Exposure at the lowest treatment level, 22 μg a.i./L, resulted 

in statistically significant mortality and a 27% reduction in reproductive success (p<0.05) when 

compared to the negative control. Male mysids in the highest treatment level (270 μg a.i./L) 

were significantly shorter (-12%) than those in the negative control (p<0.05). A definitive 

NOAEC was not established (i.e., NOAEC<22 μg a.i./L), and it is unclear to what extent solvent 

interference may have confounded the results (Table 3.23). 

Table 3.23. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates Exposed to 

Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

NOAEC 

LOAEC

(μg ai/L) 

Endpoints 

(MRID) 

Mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis 

bahia formerly 

Mysidopsis bahia) 

28-day, flowthrough TGAI (97.5%) <221

22 

Survival and 

reproduction 

(42991505) 

Eastern oyster 

(Crassotrea 

virginica) 

Estimate TGAI (97.5%) < 7.92

NA 

Acute-to-chronic 

ratio (ACR) 

(42991505) 

(42807701) NA Not available. 

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine invertebrates. 1 Based on mean-measured concentrations. 

2

 Nondefinitive chronic toxicity estimate from acute-to-chronic ratio between myid shrimp acute toxicity endpoints (LC50 = 

1,400 μg a.i./L) and NOAEC < 22 μg a.i./L., applied to IC50 value for Eastern oyster (505 μg a.i./L). 

3.3.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

As shown in Table 3.24., technical grade tebufenozide had no significant effect on vascular 

aquatic plant survival or growth in a seven-day static-renewal test with duckweed (Lemna gibba) 

(MRID 48533003) or in a 96-hour nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity test with green algae 

(Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (MRID 42436245). Tebufenozide degradates had no effect on 

the green algae at concentrations up to their apparent limits of water solubility (MRIDs 

47926506, -08, and -10), which were at least five times greater than the water solubility limit of 

parent tebufenozide (830 μg ai/L). 
42 

Table 3.24. Summary of Toxicity Data for Vascular and Nonvascular Aquatic Plants Exposed to 

Tebufenozide and its Degradates. 

Species Study Type Test Substance 

(Purity) 

NOAEL & IC50

(μg ai/L) 

(95% CL) 

Effect (MRID) 

Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba) 

7-day, static 

renewal TGAI (98.6%) 9401>940 (NA) None (48533003) 

Green alga 

(Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata) 

96-hr, static TGAI (97.5%) 7402

>740 (NA) None (42436245) 

96-hr, static 

RH-112,651 

(98.2%) 

Degradate 

4,5002

>4,500 (NA) None (47926506) 

96-hr, static 

RH-112,703 

(92.0%) 

Degradate 

5,1002

>5,100 (NA) None (47926508) 

96-hr, static RH-96,595 

Degradate 

7,0001

>7,000 (NA) None (47926510) 

CL Confidence limits, NA Not available. 

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for vascular and nonvascular aquatic plants exposed to parent 

tebufenozide. 

1 Based on mean-measured concentrations. 

2 Based on initial measured concentrations. 

3.3.2. Terrestrial Toxicity Assessment 

Tebufenozide is practically nontoxic toxic to birds, terrestrial-phase amphibians, reptiles and 

mammals on an acute oral and subacute dietary exposure basis; the chemical is also classified as 

practically nontoxic to honey bees (Apis mellifera) and an acute contact exposure basis. Chronic 

exposure to tebufenozide resulted in decreased reproduction in certain birds and mammals. 

3.3.2.1. Toxicity to Birds 

No effects were seen in bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) exposed to technical grade 

tebufenozide by oral gavage or in the diet (MRIDs 42436234 and 42436235, Table 3.25). Avian 

reproduction tests with bobwhite quail have produced different results (Table 3.26). No effects 

were seen in one study, but it did not provide offspring body weights, and certain other data in 

the report were considered unreliable (MRID 43781701). A second study yielded reproductive 

effects (reduced number of 14-day hatchling survivors) at exposures greater than 100 mg/kg diet 

(MRID 42991501). No effects were seen in an avian reproduction study with mallard duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos) that tested up to 980 mg ai/kg diet (MRID 42991503). 

Table 3.25. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Birds Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

LD50

(mg/kg bw)

or LC50

(mg ai/kg diet) 1 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

Acute oral 

toxicity TGAI (96.8%) LD50 >2,150 

Practically 

nontoxic 

(42436234) 

8-day, 

subacute TGAI (96.8%) LC50 >5,000 Practically 

nontoxic 
43 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

LD50

(mg/kg bw)

or LC50

(mg ai/kg diet) 1 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

dietary 

toxicity 

(42436235)2

Mallard duck (Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

8-day, 

subacute 

dietary 

toxicity

TGAI (96.8%) LC50 >5,000 

Practically 

nontoxic 

(42436237)3

Bolded values represent the lowest definitive toxicity endpoint and are used in risk estimation (i.e., RQ calculation). Other 

values are used in risk characterization. 

1 Based on nominal dose or dietary concentration, adjusted for purity. 

2 Analytical results for measured dietary concentrations are reported in MRID 42436236 and are considered to be within the 

range of nominal concentrations. 

3 Analytical results for measured dietary concentrations are reported in MRID 42436238 and are considered to be within the 

range of nominal concentrations. 

Table 3.26. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Birds Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) 

NOAEC 

LOAEC

(mg ai/kg 

diet)1

Endpoints 

(MRID) 

Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

Avian 

reproduction TGAI (97.5%) 100 

300 

Number of 14-day 

survivors 

(42991501)

Avian 

reproduction TGAI (96.1%) 615 

>615 None (43781701) 

Mallard duck (Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

Avian 

reproduction TGAI (97.5%) 9802

>980 None (42991503) 

Bolded values represent the lowest definitive toxicity endpoint and are used in risk estimation (i.e., RQ calculation). Other 

values are used in risk characterization. 

1 Based on nominal dose or dietary concentration, adjusted for purity, unless otherwise indicated. 2 Based on mean measured concentrations. 

3.3.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals 

Mammalian toxicity data considered in the ecological risk assessment are summarized in Table

3.27. Tebufenozide is practically nontoxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis, with an 

LD50 value of 5,000 mg/kg bw (MRID 42436212). The inhalation LC50 value is greater than 

1.33 mg/L; no mortalities were observed during the four-hour exposure (MRID 44727705). 

Chronic dietary exposure of rats to tebufenozide in a two-generation reproduction study (MRID 

42931207) resulted in fewer total implantations and increased gestation length in first generation 

offspring (F1) dams and decreased pup viability during the first four days of lactation in both F1 

and F2 generations. These effects occurred at the highest treatment level (i.e., 2,000 mg/kg diet 

or 153 mg/g bw/day). Adverse effects on the spleen were noted at the next lower treatment rate 

(150 mg/kg diet or 12.1 mg/kg bw/day). No effects were seen at the lowest treatment level (25 

mg/kg diet). 

The two-generation reproduction study was repeated (MRID 43797701) and yielded similar 
44 

overall results. Adverse effects on the spleen were noted at the intermediate treatment level (200 

mg/kg diet or ƃ12.6 mg/kg bw/day, Ƃ14.6 mg/kg bw/day). The frequency of dead pups during 

the first four days of lactation was significantly increased at this treatment level but not at the 

higher treatment level; therefore, the HED reviewer determined that the observation was not 

treatment-related in this study. Body weight and body weight gain were lower in parents and 

offspring at the 2,000 mg/kg diet (ƃ126 mg/kg bw/day, Ƃ143 mg/kg bw/day) than in controls. 

No adverse effects were observed at the lowest treatment level (25 mg/kg diet). 

The nature (histological versus apical) and dose-response of effects in both two-generation 

studies are comparable. The Health Effects Division (HED), which reviews the mammalian 

toxicity data, currently recommends use of the NOAEC and NOAEL values for apical endpoints 

in the second study (MRID 43797701) for ecological risk estimation. The LOAEC for adverse 

apical effects is the same in both studies (2,000 mg/kg diet), although the type of effects 

observed at this treatment level differed somewhat in each case. The broader range of effects in 

both studies is considered when further describing potential risk to wild mammals from 

tebufenozide exposure. 

Table 3.37. Summary of Acute and Chronic Mammalian Toxicity Data1 for Rats Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species Study Type 

Acute Chronic 

LD50 (mg/kg bw) 

LC50 (mg/L) 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

NOAEC 

(mg/kg diet) 

NOAEL 

(mg/kg bw/day) 

Endpoints 

(MRID) 

Norway rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus) 

Acute oral 

toxicity 5,000 

Practically 

nontoxic 

(42436212) 200 mg/kg diet2

12.6 mg/kg bw/day 

Lower body 

weight and body 

weight gain in 

parents and 

offspring 

(43797701) 

Acute 

inhalation 

toxicity > 1.33 NA 

(44727705) 

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints available for ecological risk assessment. ND Not determined. 1Mammalian toxicity data for tebufenozide TGAI are provided and reviewed by EPA Health Effects Division. 2 The associated LOAEC was 2,000 mg/kg diet (126 mg/kg bw/day). 
45 

3.3.2.3. Toxicity to Beneficial Insects and Other Invertebrates 

Although tebufenozide is practically non-toxic to honeybees on an acute contact exposure basis, 

the acute toxicity study was conducted using adult bees and did not examine potential effects on 

brood development. While tebufenozide is intended to target lepidopteran insects, the available 

data indicate that chemical has chronic effects across a number of taxa (birds, fish, and nonlepidopteran aquatic invertebrates). Tebufenozide is intended to induce a precocious molt and as 

such larval insects would be more susceptible. Therefore, the Problem Formulation 

recommended submission of a field pollinator study (Guideline 850.3040) to examine the 

potential effects of tebufenozide on brood development. Subsequently, the registrant submitted a 

semi-field study which identified a transient, significant (p<0.05) effect on bee mortality 

associated with the application of tebufenozide at 545 g a.i./ha (0.486 lbs a.i./A) (MRID 

49158701). No other significant effects were observed. However, interpretation of the study is 

complicated by the detection of the reference toxicant, fenoxycarb (CAS No. 72490-01-8), which 

is an insect juvenile hormone agonist, in samples from the tebufenozide treatment colony. 

Multiple nonguideline submissions on honey bee developmental toxicity were submitted by the 

registrant in support of a waiver request for the field pollinator study (Table 3.28). The 

nonguideline submissions were difficult to interpret due methodological deficiencies, 

uncertainties regarding treatment rates, and generally poor performance of bees (e.g., individual 

bee survival and metrics of honey bee colony success in controls may have been lower than 

recommended). Thus, the studies provide only limited information for risk characterization, and 

the waiver request was denied (DP Barcode D372576, 2010). Overall, however, the data suggest 

a pattern of adverse effects on larval honey bee development (US EPA, 2010). 

No effects were observed in earthworms exposed to the tebufenozide degradate RH 112,651 for 

14 days at soil concentrations of up to 100 mg/kg dry weight (MRID 47911502) (Table 3.28). 

Table 3.48. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Invertebrates Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Species 

Study Type 

(TGAI or EP) Endpoint Toxicity Classification/ Effects (MRID) 

Honey bee (Apis mellifera) 

Acute contact toxicity 

(TGAI, 96.8%) LD50 > 234 ȝg a.i./bee1 Practically nontoxic 

(42436244) 

Semi-field tunnel test 

(EP 22.8%, Confirm 2F) NOAEC 0.256 lbs a.i./A 

LOAEC 0.486 lbs a.i./A 

Transient adult 

mortality 

(49158701) 

29-day semi-field and 

oral toxicity 

(EP 24%, Mimic 240 

SC) 

ND 

Adult bee mortality, 

fewer capped brood2

(47929602) 

21-day semi-field test 

(EP3

, Mimic 240 SC) 

NOAEC < 80 mL/hL 

LOAEC 80 mL/hL 

Mortality of egg and 

larval cells (47929603) 

20-day field test 

(EP3

, Mimic 2F) 

NOAEL < 0.5 L/ha 

LOAEL 0.5 L/ha 

Fewer capped brood4

(47929605) 

20-day field test 

(EP3

, Mimic 2F) 

NOAEL < 10 g a.i./ha 

LOAEL 10 g a.i./ha5

Transient mortality 

(47929606) 
46 

Earthworm (Eisenia 

foetida) 

14-day acute toxicity in 

soil (Degradate > 99.9%, 

RH 112,651) 

NOAEC 100 mg/kg dw 

LOAEC > 100 mg/kg dw None (47911502) 

hL Hectoliter. ND Not determined. NR Not reported. 1 Based on nominal dose, adjusted for purity. 

2 Exposure was unquantified, and results were not analyzed statistically. 

3 Purity of the test substance was not reported. 

4 Effect was observed at one of two sites. 

5 Reported as equivalent to 200 g EP/ha (0.18 lbs EP/A, or 0.009 lbs ai/A). Actual treatment rates varied considerably across 

sites (i.e., from 190 to 940 g EP/ha, 0.17 to 0.85 lbs EP/A, or 0.009 to 0.042 lbs ai/A). 

3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants 

Terrestrial plant toxicity studies are required for pesticides that have terrestrial use patterns or 

may move off of the application site. The NOAEL and IC25 (concentration that causes an 

inhibitory effect in 25% of the population for the monitored endpoint) values are established for

markers of seedling emergence and vegetative vigor. As shown in Table 3.29, toxicity in the 

form of reduced growth (dry weight) was observed in terrestrial dicotyledonous (dicot) plants 

(i.e., radish) exposed to tebufenozide at 0.97 lbs a.i./A (-14%) and 1.97 lbs a.i./A (-7%) in a 

vegetative vigor study; the effect was statistically significant (p<0.05) and a NOAEL was not 

established (MRID 48533002). Similarly, a NOAEL was not established for dicot plants in the 

seedling emergence test where cabbage emergence was significantly (p<0.05) reduced by 14% 

compared to the negative control when treated with the lowest treatment rate of 0.98 lbs a.i./A 

(measured) (MRID 48533001). No other statistically significant effects were observed either 

study. No effect greater than 25% was observed in either test. Monocotyledonous (monocot) 

plants did not exhibit any adverse effect at the treatment levels tested in either the vegetative 

vigor or seedling emergence studies. The experimental design of both tests was inadequate to 

establish point estimates (e.g., IC05 and IC25) because only two treatment levels were used. 

Table 3.59. Toxicity of Tebufenozide to Non-target Terrestrial Plants.

Crop Type of Study 

Species 

IC25*

(lbs ai/A) 

NOAEL* 

(lbs ai/A) 

Endpoint 

Affected MRID 

Vegetative Vigor (EP 22.8% ai, Confirm® 2F)

Monocots 

Corn 

>1.97 1.97 None 

48533002 

Onion 

Ryegrass 

Wheat 

Dicots 

Cabbage >1.97 1.97 None Lettuce 

Radish >1.97 <0.97 Dry weight 

Soybean 

Sugar beet >1.97 1.97 None 

Tomato 

Seedling Emergence (EP 22.8% ai, Confirm® 2F)

Monocots 

Corn >1.94 1.94 

None 

48533001 

Oat 

Onion > 1.95 1.95 

Ryegrass >1.94 1.94 

Dicots 

Cabbage >1.94 <0.98 Emergence 

Cucumber >1.94 1.94 None Lettuce 
47 

Radish 

Soybean 

Tomato >1.95 1.95 

* Based on measured application rates. Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoints from each study. 1Less than the lowest treatment rate of tebufenozide tested. 

3.3.3. Review of Incident Data 

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), which is maintained by the Agency’s Office 

of Pesticide Programs, was searched to determine if ecological incidents have been reported for 

tebufenozide. Based on a search of EIIS conducted in September 2014, one incident associated 

with tebufenozide was reported between 1999 and 2014. This incident, resulting in 

“deformities” in 23 acres of walnut, was categorized as having a possible association with the 

registered use of tebufenozide (Confirm 2F at 16-20 oz/A) in a tank mix with KINETIC, a 

nonionic surfactant, that was applied directly to the walnut orchard (Incident No. I013563-013, 

1999). 

Because of limitations in the incident reporting system, the lack of additional incident reports 

cannot be construed as the absence of incidents from the registered use of tebufenozide. At the 

time of the search, EIIS contained information on incidents reported through 2014. 

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) Avian Incident Monitoring System, which contains 

information on bird-related incidents for the years 1968 through 2005, was searched in 

September 2014. No records of incidents were reported to be associated with tebufenozide 

(ABC 2013). 

4. Risk Characterization 

4.1. Screening-Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values 

4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms 

Risk quotient (RQ) values are calculated for acute and chronic risk to freshwater fish and 

amphibians and invertebrates, for chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish, and for acute risk to 

estuarine/marine invertebrates. For acute risk to estuarine/marine fish and chronic risk to 

estuarine/marine invertebrates, RQ values are not calculated because the available toxicity 

endpoints are nondefinitive (i.e., outside the range of concentrations tested) (see Table 4.1). 

Risks are described in Section 4.3. 
48 

Table 4.1. Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Taxonomic

Group(s) 

RQ Calculation 

Acute RQ 

(Y/N) 

Endpoint and Justification, if 

RQs are not calculated 

Chronic 

RQ (Y/N) 

Endpoint and Justification, if 

RQs are not calculated 

Freshwater fish and 

amphibians Y Bluegill sunfish 

LC50 = 3,000 μg a.i./L Y Fathead minnow1 

NOAEC = 51.1 μg a.i./L 

Freshwater 

invertebrates Y Water flea LC50 = 3,800 μg a.i./L Y Water flea NOAEC = 29 μg a.i./L 

Estuarine/marine 

fish N 

Nondefinitive toxicity endpoint 

Sheepshead minnow 

LC50 >720 μg a.i./L 

Y Sheepshead minnow 

NOAEC = 550 μg a.i./L 

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates Y Eastern oyster IC50 = 505 μg a.i./L N 

Nondefinitive toxicity endpoint 

Est. from acute-to-chronic ratio2

NOAEC < 7.9 μg a.i./L 1 Different species in acute and chronic toxicity tests; comparative toxicity across species has not been established. 

2 Nondefinitive chronic toxicity estimate from acute-to-chronic ratio between mysid shrimp acute toxicity endpoint (LC50 = 1,400 

μg a.i./L) and NOAEC < 22 μg a.i./L., applied to IC50 value for Eastern oyster (505 μg a.i./L). 

 

Across all of the registered used of tebufenozide, the use on cranberry results in the highest 

EECs for exposure to undiluted bog water; RQ values exceed LOCs for acute risks to listed 

species of freshwater fish, amphibians, and invertebrates (Table 4.2); acute risk to listed and 

non-listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates (Table 4.2); and chronic risks to freshwater 

fish, amphibians, and invertebrates (Table 4.3 and Table 4.4). Most other uses present RQ 

values that exceed the LOC for acute risk to listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates. 

Acute risk from exposure from ground application to bushberries, caneberries, cranberry, and 

forestry uses (ground and aerial) is below the estuarine/marine invertebrate listed species LOC. 

Various uses present chronic risk that exceeds the LOC for freshwater invertebrates, fish and 

amphibians (Table 4.3 and Table 4.4).

Table 4.2. Acute RQ Values for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Tebufenozide TTR in Surface Water. 

Use Application

Method 

Peak EEC 

(μg a.i./L)

Freshwater

Fish and 

Amphibians 

Freshwater

Invertebrates

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates 

RQ Probability of 

Effect

Bushberries, 

Caneberries 

aerial 37.2 0.01 <0.01 0.07 1 in 10 x 106

ground 20.5 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 Not calculated

Canola 

aerial 58.6 0.02 0.02 0.12 1 in 6 x 104

ground 40.1 0.01 0.01 0.08 1 in 3 x 106

Citrus 

aerial 60.4 0.02 0.02 0.12 1 in 6 x 104

ground 51.6 0.02 0.01 0.10 1 in 3 x 105

Brassica 

aerial 90.8 0.03 0.02 0.18 1 in 2 x 103

ground 78.8 0.03 0.02 0.16 1 in 6 x 103

Cotton 

aerial 59.6 0.02 0.02 0.12 1 in 6 x 104

ground 49.9 0.02 0.01 0.10 1 in 3 x 105

Cranberry 

aerial 37.4 0.01 <0.01 0.07 1 in 10 x 106

ground 20.5 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 Not calculated

Fruiting 

vegetables 

aerial 112 0.04 0.03 0.22 1 in 6 x 102

ground 99.4 0.03 0.03 0.20 1 in 1 x 103
49 

Use Application

Method 

Peak EEC 

(μg a.i./L)

Freshwater

Fish and 

Amphibians 

Freshwater

Invertebrates

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates 

RQ Probability of 

Effect

Mint 

aerial 73.0 0.02 0.02 0.14 1 in 2 x 104

ground 40.4 0.01 0.01 0.08 1 in 3 x 106

Ornamentals 

aerial 84.9 0.03 0.02 0.17 1 in 4 x 103

ground 70.9 0.02 0.02 0.14 1 in 2 x 104

Pome fruit aerial 96.4 0.03 0.03 0.19 1 in 2 x 103

ground 72.2 0.02 0.02 0.14 1 in 2 x 104

Sugarcane aerial 86.7 0.03 0.02 0.17 1 in 4 x 103

ground 79.6 0.03 0.02 0.16 1 in 6 x 103

Almonds, 

Walnuts, 

Other nuts 

aerial 59.6 0.02 0.02 0.12 1 in 6 x 104

ground 35.2 0.01 <0.01 0.07 1 in 10 x 106

Pecans aerial 69.9 0.02 0.02 0.14 1 in 2 x 104

ground 52.0 0.02 0.01 0.10 1 in 3 x 105

Trees, Forests, 

Shrubs 

aerial 12.4 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 Not calculated

ground 10.6 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 Not calculated

Pasture, 

rangeland 

aerial 30.6 0.01 <0.01 0.06 1 in 5 x 107

ground 26.5 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 1 in 4 x 108

Cranberry NA 279a 0.09b 0.07c 0.55 1 in 8 

Bold values exceed the LOC (0.05) for acute risk to listed species of aquatic animals. Shaded cells indicate 

that the RQ exceeds the LOC (0.5) for acute risk to non-listed species of aquatic animals. 

1 Reflects a 21-day holding time, post-flood. 

b Probability of an acute effect to freshwater fish or amphibians at RQ = 0.09: 1 in 7.1 x 105. c

 Probability of an acute effect to freshwater invertebrates at RQ = 0.07:1 in 9.9 x 106. 

Table 4.3. Chronic RQ Values for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Tebufenozide TTR in Surface 

Water.

Use Application Method 21-Day EEC 

(μg a.i./L) Freshwater Invertebrates 

Bushberries, 

Caneberries 

aerial 36.8 1.27 

ground 20.3 0.70 

Canola 

aerial 57.9 2.00 

ground 39.6 1.37 

Citrus 

aerial 59.2 2.04 

ground 50.8 1.75 

Brassica 

aerial 89.4 3.08 

ground 77.4 2.67 

Cotton 

aerial 58.8 2.03 

ground 49.5 1.71 

Cranberry 

aerial 37.0 1.28 

ground 20.3 0.70 

Fruiting 

vegetables 

aerial 111 3.83 

ground 98.1 3.38 
50 

Use Application Method 21-Day EEC 

(μg a.i./L) Freshwater Invertebrates 

Mint 

aerial 72.2 2.49 

ground 39.9 1.38 

Ornamentals 

aerial 83.4 2.88 

ground 69.7 2.40 

Pome fruit 

aerial 95.2 3.28 

ground 71.6 2.47 

Sugarcane 

aerial 85.7 2.96 

ground 78.6 2.71 

Almonds, 

Walnuts, Other 

nuts 

aerial 58.9 2.03 

ground 34.9 1.20 

Pecans 

aerial 69.0 2.38 

ground 51.3 1.77 

Trees, Forests, 

Shrubs 

aerial 12.1 0.42 

ground 10.3 0.36 

Pasture, 

rangeland 

aerial 30.2 1.04 

ground 26.3 0.91 

Cranberry NA 106a 3.65 

Bold, shaded values exceed the LOC (1) for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted species of aquatic animals. a

 Reflects a 21-day holding time, post-flood. 

Table 4.4. Chronic RQ Values for Fish and Amphibians Exposed to Tebufenozide TTR in Surface Water. 

Use Application

Method 

60-Day EEC 

(μg ai/L)

Freshwater Fish and 

Amphibians Estuarine/Marine Fish 

Bushberries, 

Caneberries 

aerial 36.2 0.71 0.07 

ground 20.0 0.39 0.04 

Canola 

aerial 56.8 1.11 0.10 

ground 38.7 0.76 0.07 

Citrus 

aerial 58.1 1.14 0.11 

ground 49.7 0.97 0.09 

Brassica 

aerial 86.8 1.70 0.16 

ground 75.1 1.47 0.14 

Cotton 

aerial 56.8 1.11 0.10 

ground 47.8 0.94 0.09 

Cranberry 

aerial 36.5 0.71 0.07 

ground 20.0 0.39 0.04 

Fruiting 

vegetables 

aerial 108 2.11 0.20 

ground 95.8 1.87 0.17 

Mint 

aerial 71.4 1.40 0.13 

ground 39.5 0.77 0.07 

Ornamentals 

aerial 81.8 1.60 0.15 

ground 68.3 1.34 0.12 
51 

Use Application

Method 

60-Day EEC 

(μg ai/L)

Freshwater Fish and 

Amphibians Estuarine/Marine Fish 

Pome fruit 

aerial 93.5 1.83 0.17 

ground 60.0 1.17 0.11 

Sugarcane 

aerial 84.3 1.65 0.15 

ground 76.9 1.50 0.14 

Almonds, 

Walnuts, Other 

nuts 

aerial 57.6 1.13 0.10 

ground 34.1 0.67 0.06 

Pecans 

aerial 67.6 1.32 0.12 

ground 50.2 0.98 0.09 

Trees, Forests, 

Shrubs 

aerial 11.7 0.23 0.02 

ground 10.0 0.20 0.02 

Pasture, 

rangeland 

aerial 29.6 0.58 0.05 

ground 25.8 0.50 0.05 

Cranberry NA 106a 2.07 0.19

Bold. shaded cells indicate that the RQ exceeds the LOC (1.0) for chronic risk to non-listed and listed species of aquatic 

animals. 

a Reflects a 21-day holding time, post-flood. 

The RQ values are calculated for risks to listed species of aquatic vascular and nonvascular 

plants. For risks to non-listed species of aquatic plants, RQ values are not calculated because the 

available toxicity endpoints are non-definitive (i.e., IC50 not achieved within the range of 

concentrations tested) (see Table 4.5). However, the RQ values for listed plants in this 

assessment are calculated using a lower toxicity endpoint (i.e., NOAEL as opposed to an IC50). 

Risks are described in Section 4.3. 

Table 4.5. Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Plants Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Taxonomic

Group(s) 

RQ Calculation 

Listed

Species

RQ (Y/N) 

Endpoint and Justification, if 

RQs are not calculated 

Nonlisted

Species

RQ (Y/N) 

Endpoint and Justification, if 

RQs are not calculated 

Aquatic vascular 

plants Y Duckweed 

NOAEL = 940 μg a.i./L N 

Nondefinitive endpoint 

Duckweed 

IC50 >940 μg a.i./L 

Aquatic 

nonvascular plants Y Green alga 

NOAEL = 740 μg a.i./L N 

Nondefinitive endpoint 

Green alga 

IC50 >740 μg a.i./L 

As shown in Table 4.6, the RQ values for aquatic plants exposed to tebufenozide a.i. in surface 

water are all below LOCs. 

 

Table 4.6. RQ Values for Listed Species of Aquatic Plants Exposed to Tebufenozide TTR in Surface Water. 

Use Application

Method 

Peak EEC 

(μg a.i./L)

Aquatic Vascular Plants 

(Listed Species)a

Aquatic Nonvascular 

Plants 

(Listed Species)b

Bushberries, 

Caneberries 

aerial 37.2 0.04 0.05 

ground 20.5 0.02 0.03 
52 

Use Application

Method 

Peak EEC 

(μg a.i./L)

Aquatic Vascular Plants 

(Listed Species)a

Aquatic Nonvascular 

Plants 

(Listed Species)b

Canola 

aerial 58.6 0.06 0.08 

ground 40.1 0.04 0.05 

Citrus 

aerial 60.4 0.06 0.08 

ground 51.6 0.05 0.07 

Brassica 

aerial 90.8 0.10 0.12 

ground 78.8 0.08 0.11 

Cotton 

aerial 59.6 0.06 0.08 

ground 49.9 0.05 0.07 

Cranberry 

aerial 37.4 0.04 0.05 

ground 20.5 0.02 0.03 

Fruiting 

vegetables 

aerial 112 0.12 0.15 

ground 99.4 0.11 0.13 

Mint 

aerial 73.0 0.08 0.10 

ground 40.4 0.04 0.05 

Ornamentals 

aerial 84.9 0.09 0.11 

ground 70.9 0.08 0.10 

Pome fruit 

aerial 96.4 0.10 0.13 

ground 72.2 0.08 0.10 

Sugarcane 

aerial 86.7 0.09 0.12 

ground 79.6 0.08 0.11 

Almonds, 

Walnuts, Other 

nuts 

aerial 59.6 0.06 0.08 

ground 35.2 0.04 0.05 

Pecans 

aerial 69.9 0.07 0.09 

ground 52.0 0.06 0.07 

Trees, Forests, 

Shrubs 

aerial 12.4 0.01 0.02 

ground 10.6 0.01 0.01 

Pasture, 

rangeland 

aerial 30.6 0.03 0.04 

ground 26.5 0.03 0.04 

Cranberry NA 279c 0.30 0.38

a RQ values for listed species of aquatic plants can be used as a conservative metric of risk to nonlisted species. 

b RQ values for listed species of aquatic plants can be used as a conservative metric of risk to nonlisted species. There are 

currently no federally listed species of aquatic nonvascular plants in the United States. c Reflects a 21-day holding time, post-flood.
53 

4.1.2. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms 

The risk estimation includes RQ values for chronic risk to birds and for acute and chronic risk to 

mammals from registered uses of tebufenozide. It does not include RQ values for acute risk to 

birds or hone bees because the toxicity endpoints are nondefinitive (i.e., LD50 > 2,150 mg/kg bw, 

LC50 >5,000 mg/kg diet for birds; LD50 >234 ȝg ai/bee for acute contact toxicity in adult honey 

bees). Similarly, RQ values are not calculated for terrestrial plants because toxicity tests 

endpoints were nondefinitive (Table 4.7). The potential risks to birds (as well as reptiles and 

terrestrial-phase amphibians for which birds serve as surrogates), mammals, and terrestrial plants 

are discussed in the Risk Description (Section 4.3). 

Table 4.7. Considerations for RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Plants Exposed to Tebufenozide. 

Taxonomic

Group(s) 

RQ Calculation 

Listed

Species

RQ (Y/N) 

Endpoint and Justification, if 

RQs are not calculated 

Nonlisted

Species

RQ (Y/N) 

Endpoint and Justification, if 

RQs are not calculated 

Seedling 

emergence 

N 

Nondefinitive endpoint 

NOAEL <0.97 

Radish dry weight 

N Nondefinitive endpoint 

IC25 >1.97 

Vegetative vigor N 

Nondefinitive endpoint 

NOAEL <0.98 

Cabbage emergence 

N Nondefinitive endpoint 

IC25 >1.94 

Nearly all registered agricultural uses of tebufenozide result in RQ values that exceed the LOC 

(RQ >1) for chronic risk to birds (and by proxy to reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) that 

forage primarily on items like short grass or broadleaf plants (Table 4.8). The exceptions are the 

use on pasture and rangeland, for up to two seasons per year, and the forestry use, which result in 

RQ values ranging from 0.04 (residues on fruits, pods, and seeds) to 0.95 (residues on short 

grass). The RQ values for certain agricultural uses (fruiting vegetables, mint, pome fruit, 

sugarcane, and tree nuts) also exceed the chronic risk LOC for birds, reptiles, and terrestrialphase amphibians eating tall grass or arthropods. 

Table 4.8. Screening-level Dietary-based (mg/kg diet) RQ values as Food Residues for Chronic Risk to Birds, 

Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians from Labeled Uses of Tebufenozide (T-REX v. 1.5.2; 

June 6, 2013). 

Primary Feeding Strategy Æ Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods 

Use(s) È

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries 1.97 0.90 1.11 0.12 0.77 

Caneberries 1.83 0.84 1.03 0.11 0.72 

Canola 1.83 0.84 1.03 0.11 0.72 

Citrus 1.86 0.85 1.05 0.12 0.73 

Cole crops and leafy vegetables 1.52 0.70 0.86 0.10 0.60 
54 

Primary Feeding Strategy Æ Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods 

Use(s) È

Cotton 1.83 0.84 1.03 0.11 0.72 

Cranberries 1.97 0.90 1.11 0.12 0.77 

Fruiting vegetables 2.65 1.22 1.49 0.17 1.04 

Mint 2.65 1.22 1.49 0.17 1.04

Pastures and rangeland 0.95 0.44 0.53 0.06 0.37

Pome fruits 3.25 1.49 1.83 0.20 1.27 

Sugarcane 1.83 0.84 1.03 0.11 0.72 

Tree nuts (almond, walnut, other nuts) 3.44 1.57 1.93 0.21 1.35 

Tree nuts (pecan) 2.74 1.26 1.54 0.17 1.07 

Non-agricultural Uses

Ornamentals 2.65 1.22 1.49 0.17 1.04

Forest, trees and shrubs 0.55 0.25 0.31 0.03 0.21 

Shaded cells indicate that RQ values exceed the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted species (RQ > 1). 

The RQ values for all registered agricultural uses of tebufenozide are below LOCs for acute risk 

to listed (RQ > 0.1) and non-listed (RQ > 0.5) species of mammals (Table 4.9). However, 

chronic risk LOCs for mammals are exceeded (RQ >1) for all size classes of mammals eating 

short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, and (for certain uses) fruits, pods, and seeds; only RQ 

values for strict granivores are below the chronic risk LOC for all uses (Table 4.10 and Table

4.11). When not adjusted for dose, only the uses on pasture and rangelands and for forestry 

result in RQ values below the LOC for chronic risk to mammals. The highest RQ values result 

from uses on fruiting vegetables, mint, pome fruit, and tree nuts, which have the highest 

application rates. 
Table 4.9. Screening-level Dose-based (mg/kg bw) RQ values as Food Residues for Acute Risk to Mammals from Labeled Uses of Tebufenozide (T-REX 

v. 1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Primary Feeding 

Strategy Æ Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores 

Animal Size Æ Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large 

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf s Plant

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds, Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc. Use(s) È

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Caneberries 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Canola 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Citrus 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Cole crops and leafy vegetables 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Cotton 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Cranberries 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fruiting vegetables 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Mint 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Pastures and rangeland 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Pome fruits 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sugarcane 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Tree nuts (almond, walnut, other nuts) 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Tree nuts (pecan) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Non-agricultural Uses

Ornamentals 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Forest, trees and shrubs <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Shaded cells indicate that RQ values exceed the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted species (RQ > 1)

Table 4.10. Screening-level Dose-based (mg/kg bw) RQ Values as Food Residues for Chronic Risk to Mammals from Labeled Uses of Tebufenozide (TREX v. 1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Primary Feeding 

Strategy Æ Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores 

Animal Size Æ Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large 

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf 

tsna Pl

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds, Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc. Use(s) È

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries 6.79 3.11 3.82 0.42 5.80 2.66 3.26 0.36 3.11 1.43 1.75 0.19 2.66 2.27 1.22 0.09 0.08 0.04 Caneberries 6.29 2.88 3.54 0.39 5.37 2.46 3.02 0.34 2.88 1.32 1.62 0.18 2.46 2.10 1.13 0.09 0.07 0.04 Canola 6.29 2.88 3.54 0.39 5.37 2.46 3.02 0.34 2.88 1.32 1.62 0.18 2.46 2.10 1.13 0.09 0.07 0.04Citrus 6.40 2.93 3.60 0.40 5.47 2.50 3.07 0.34 2.93 1.34 1.65 0.18 2.51 2.14 1.15 0.09 0.08 0.04 Cole crops and leafy vegetables 5.24 2.40 2.95 0.33 4.47 2.05 2.52 0.28 2.40 1.10 1.35 0.15 2.05 1.75 0.94 0.07 0.06 0.03 Cotton 6.29 2.88 3.54 0.39 5.37 2.46 3.02 0.34 2.88 1.32 1.62 0.18 2.46 2.10 1.13 0.09 0.07 0.04Cranberries 6.79 3.11 3.82 0.42 5.80 2.66 3.26 0.36 3.11 1.43 1.75 0.19 2.66 2.27 1.22 0.09 0.08 0.04 Fruiting vegetables 9.14 4.19 5.14 0.57 7.81 3.58 4.39 0.49 4.18 1.92 2.35 0.26 3.58 3.06 1.64 0.13 0.11 0.06 Mint 9.14 4.19 5.14 0.57 7.81 3.58 4.39 0.49 4.18 1.92 2.35 0.26 3.58 3.06 1.64 0.13 0.11 0.06Pastures and rangeland 3.27 1.50 1.84 0.20 2.79 1.28 1.57 0.17 1.50 0.69 0.84 0.09 1.28 1.09 0.59 0.05 0.04 0.02 Pome fruits 11.2 5.12 6.29 0.70 9.55 4.37 5.37 0.60 5.12 2.35 2.88 0.32 4.38 3.74 2.00 0.16 0.13 0.07 Sugarcane 6.29 2.88 3.54 0.39 5.37 2.46 3.02 0.34 2.88 1.32 1.62 0.18 2.46 2.10 1.13 0.09 0.07 0.04Tree nuts (almond, walnut, other nuts) 11.8 5.42 6.65 0.74 10.1 4.63 5.68 0.63 5.42 2.48 3.05 0.34 4.63 3.96 2.12 0.16 0.14 0.08 Tree nuts (pecan) 9.45 4.33 5.31 0.59 8.07 3.70 4.54 0.50 4.33 1.98 2.43 0.27 3.70 3.16 1.69 0.13 0.11 0.06 

Non-agricultural Uses

Ornamentals 9.14 4.19 5.14 0.57 7.81 3.58 4.39 0.49 4.18 1.92 2.35 0.26 3.58 3.06 1.64 0.13 0.11 0.06 Forest, trees and shrubs 1.89 0.87 1.06 0.12 1.61 0.74 0.91 0.10 0.87 0.40 0.49 0.05 0.74 0.63 0.34 0.03 0.02 0.01 
57 

Table 4.11. Screening-level Dietary-based (mg/kg diet) RQ values as Food Residues for Chronic Risk to 

Mammals from Labeled Uses of Tebufenozide (T-REX v. 1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Primary Feeding Strategy Æ Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods 

Use(s) È

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries 0.99 0.45 0.55 0.06 0.39 

Caneberries 0.91 0.42 0.51 0.06 0.36 

Canola 0.91 0.42 0.51 0.06 0.36 

Citrus 0.93 0.43 0.52 0.06 0.36 

Cole crops and leafy vegetables 0.76 0.35 0.43 0.05 0.30 

Cotton 0.91 0.42 0.51 0.06 0.36 

Cranberries 0.99 0.45 0.55 0.06 0.39 

Fruiting vegetables 1.33 0.61 0.75 0.08 0.52 

Mint 1.33 0.61 0.75 0.08 0.52 

Pastures and rangeland 0.48 0.22 0.27 0.03 0.17 

Pome fruits 1.62 0.74 0.91 0.10 0.64 

Sugarcane 0.91 0.42 0.51 0.06 0.36 

Tree nuts (almond, walnut, other nuts) 1.72 0.79 0.97 0.11 0.67 

Tree nuts (pecan) 1.37 0.63 0.77 0.09 0.54 

Non-agricultural Uses

Ornamentals 1.33 0.61 0.75 0.08 0.52 

Forest, trees and shrubs 0.27 0.13 0.15 0.02 0.11 

Shaded cells indicate that RQ values exceed the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted species (RQ >1).

 
58 

4.2. Refinements 

Nearly all registered agricultural uses of tebufenozide result in RQ values that exceed the LOCs 

for acute risk to listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates, for chronic risks to 

estuarine/marine and freshwater invertebrates, and for chronic risks to freshwater fish and 

amphibians. Terrestrial exposure presents chronic risks of concern for birds (and by proxy to 

reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) that forage primarily on items like short grass or 

broadleaf plants. Chronic risk LOCs for mammals are also exceeded for all size classes of 

mammals eating short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, and (for certain uses) fruits, pods, and 

seeds. In this section refinements are made to the screening-level assessment by considering risk 

from aquatic exposure to tebufenozide parent only (versus TTR) and, for terrestrial risks, by 

using average rather than maximum application rates to further characterize potential exposures. 

4.2.1. RQs for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Tebufenozide Parent Only 

For characterization purposes, RQ values for exposure to tebufenozide parent only are calculated 

for acute and chronic risk to freshwater fish and amphibians and invertebrates, for chronic risk to 

estuarine/marine fish, and for acute risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates. For acute risk to 

estuarine/marine fish and chronic risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates, RQ values are not 

calculated because the available toxicity endpoints are nondefinitive (i.e., outside the range of 

concentrations tested) (see Table 4.1). In Table 4.12 through Table 4.14, a shaded cell indicates 

that risk exceeded the level of concern based on exposure to tebufenozide TTR. 

When only exposure to the tebufenozide parent compound is considered, the use on fruiting 

vegetables (0.25 lbs ai/A, 2.0 lbs/A/year) presents RQ values that exceed levels of concern for 

acute risk to listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates (e.g., fruiting vegetables) and for 

chronic risk to freshwater invertebrates. Chronic risks to freshwater fish and amphibians are 

below levels of concern for exposure to only the parent compound. These risks and others for 

which RQs are not calculated are described in Section 4.3. 

Table 4.12. Acute RQ Values for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Tebufenozide Parent Only in Surface Water. 

Use 

Application

Method 

Peak EEC 

(μg a.i./L)

Freshwater Fish 

and Amphibians

Freshwater

Invertebrates 

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates 

Canola 

Aerial 18.4 0.01 0.01 0.04

Ground 13 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 

Fruiting 

vegetables 

Aerial 46 0.02 0.01 0.09 

Ground 42.5 0.01 0.01 0.08 

Trees, forests, 

shrubs 

Aerial 7.44 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Ground 6.67 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Bold values exceed the level of concern for acute risk to listed species of aquatic animals (LOC = 0.05). 

Shaded cells indicate that risk exceeded the acute risk-to-listed species LOC for exposure to tebufenozide TTR. 
59 

Table 4.13. Chronic RQ Values for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Tebufenozide Parent Only in 

Surface Water. 

Use Application Method 21-Day EEC 

(μg a.i./L) Freshwater Invertebrates 

Canola 

aerial 17.2 0.59

ground 12 0.41 

Fruiting 

vegetables 

aerial 42.1 1.45 

ground 38.7 1.33 

Trees, forests, 

shrubs 

aerial 6.67 0.23

ground 5.99 0.21

Bold values exceed the level of concern for chronic risk to aquatic animals (LOC = 1). 

Shaded cells indicate that risk exceeded the chronic risk LOC for exposure to tebufenozide TTR. 

Table 4.14. Chronic RQ Values for Fish and Amphibians Exposed to Tebufenozide Parent Only in Surface 

Water.

Use Application

Method 

60-Day EEC 

(μg ai/L)

Freshwater Fish and 

Amphibians Estuarine/Marine Fish 

Canola Aerial 16.2 0.32 0.03 

Ground 10.9 0.21 0.02 

Fruiting 

vegetables 

Aerial 39.4 0.77 0.07 

Ground 36.3 0.71 0.07 

Trees, forests, 

shrubs 

Aerial 5.81 0.11 0.01 

Ground 5.29 0.10 0.01 

Shaded cells indicate that risk exceeded the chronic risk LOC for exposure to tebufenozide TTR. 

4.2.2. EECs and RQs for Terrestrial Animals Based on Mean and Upper Bound 

Kenaga EECs for Average Annual Application Rate 

Average annual application rates for specific crops are provided by BEAD (Table 4.15) and can 

be used to generate terrestrial RQ values for risk characterization (Table 4.16 and Table 4.17). 

In this assessment, the RQ values using average annual application rates are based on the mean 

and upper-bound Kenaga nomogram EECs for the use on walnut (0.27 lbs a.i./A) because this 

was the highest annual rate reported; the average annual application rate was lower for all other 

crops surveyed. The average annual application rate for walnut is less than the maximum single 

application rate permitted by the label (0.47 lbs a.i./A) for that use. 

Refined EECs and RQ values are calculated for chronic risk to birds and for chronic risk to 

mammals; no refinements are conducted for acute risk to mammals because none of the 

screening-level RQ values for acute risk exceeded the LOC. Consistent with the screening-level 

risk estimation, RQ values are not calculated for acute risk to birds because the toxicity 

endpoints are non-definitive (LD50 >2,150 mg/kg bw, LC50 > 5,000 mg/kg diet). Therefore, and 

because chronic avian toxicity data are presented on a dietary (not dose-adjusted) basis, dosebased EECs and RQ values for birds are omitted from this section. In the absence of data on 

average number of applications, refined EECs and RQ values for characterizing chronic risk to 

terrestrial vertebrates were calculated for a single application of tebufenozide at the average 

annual application rate (lbs a.i./A/year). 
60 

Table 4.15. Average Annual Application Rates and Input Parameters for Deriving Refined Terrestrial EECs 

for Tebufenozide (T-REX v. 1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Use(s) Crop Surveyed 

Highest 

Annual App. Rate 

(lbs a.i./A/year)

Foliar 

Dissipation HalfLife

Agricultural Uses 

Bushberries and caneberries Caneberries 0.12 

352

Canola NR NR 

Citrus NR NR 

Cole crops and leafy 

vegetables

Broccoli 0.11 

Cabbage 0.12 

Lettuce 0.11 

Spinach 0.13 

Cotton Cotton 0.23 

Cranberries NR NR 

Fruiting vegetables Pepper 0.11 

Squash 0.13 

Tomato 0.14 

Mint NR NR 

Pastures and rangeland Alfalfa NR 

Pome fruits Apple 0.26 

Sugarcane Sugarcane 0.10 

Tree nuts (almond, walnut, 

other nuts)

Almond 0.25 

Walnut 0.271

Tree nuts (pecan) Pecan 0.14 

Non-agricultural Uses 

Ornamentals NR NR 353

Forest, trees and shrubs NR NR 

Abbreviations: App. Application(s). NR Not reported. 1

 In this assessment, refined EECs are calculated assuming a single application at the highest average annual application rate 

across registered uses, which is for walnuts. 2 The default foliar dissipation half-life value of 35 days is used in the absence of foliar dissipation data. 

As shown in Table 4.16, the upper-bound dietary EECs (mg a.i./kg diet) for the use of 

tebufenozide at the average annual application rate for walnuts are less than 20% of the EECs 

resulting from the maximum labeled rate for that use. Similarly, mean EECs for the average 

annual rate for walnuts are slightly less than 7% of the upper-bound EECs for the maximum 

labeled rate. The associated dietary RQ values for average use patterns do not exceed LOCs for 

chronic risk to birds or mammals. 

Table 4.16. Mean and Upper Bound Kenaga Dietary EECs (mg a.i./kg diet) and RQ Values for Birds, 

Reptiles, Terrestrial-phase Amphibians, and Mammals Using the Average Annual Application 

Rate for Walnut (T-REX v. 1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Primary Feeding Strategy Æ Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods 

Use(s) È

EECs
61 

Primary Feeding Strategy Æ Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods 

Use(s) È

Mean (average annual rate) 23.0 9.72 12.2 1.89 17.6 

Upper bound (average annual rate) 64.8 29.7 36.5 4.05 25.4 

Upper bound (maximum labeled rate) 344 157 193 21.5 135 

RQ Values: Chronic Risk to Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians

Mean (average annual rate) 0.23 0.10 0.12 0.02 0.18 

Upper bound (average annual rate) 0.65 0.30 0.36 0.04 0.25 

Upper bound (maximum labeled rate) 3.44 1.57 1.93 0.21 1.35

RQ Values: Chronic Risk to Mammals

Mean (average annual rate) 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.09 

Upper bound (average annual rate) 0.32 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.13 

Upper bound (maximum labeled rate) 1.72 0.79 0.97 0.11 0.67 

Shaded cells indicate that RQ values exceed the LOC for chronic risk to listed and non-listed species (RQ > 1). 

Dose-adjusted EECs (mg a.i./kg bw) for mammals are similarly reduced (Table 4.17) when 

based on the average annual application rate to walnuts. However, the RQ values for upperbound EECs continue to exceed the LOC for chronic risk to small (10 g) and medium (100 g) 

mammals that consume primarily short grass, tall grass, and broadleaf plants, and to large 

mammals (1,000 g) that consume short grass. The highest RQ value is 2.23 for small mammals 

consuming short grass. The RQ values for mean EECs from average usage on walnuts do not 

exceed the chronic risk LOC for mammals. 
62 

Table 4.17. Mean and Upper Bound, Dose-Adjusted Kenaga EECs (mg a.i./kg bw) and RQ Values for Mammals Using Average Annual Application

Rate for Walnut (T-REX v. 1.5.2; June 6, 2013). 

Primary Feeding 

Strategy Æ Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores 

Animal Size Æ Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large 

Dietary Items Æ

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broad-leaf s Plant

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds,

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, pods, . etc seeds, Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc. Use(s) È

EECs

Mean (average annual rate) 21.9 9.27 11.6 1.80 15.1 6.40 8.01 1.25 3.51 1.49 1.86 0.29 16.7 11.6 2.68 0.40 0.28 0.06 Upper bound (average annual rate) 61.8 28.3 34.8 3.86 42.7 19.6 24.0 2.67 9.90 4.54 5.57 0.62 24.2 16.7 3.88 0.86 0.59 0.14 Upper bound (max. labeled rate) 328 150 184 20.5 226 104 127 14.2 52.5 24.1 29.5 3.28 128 88.7 20.6 4.55 3.14 0.73

RQ Values: Chronic Risk to Mammals

Mean (average annual rate) 0.79 0.33 0.42 0.07 0.67 0.29 0.36 0.06 0.36 0.15 0.19 0.03 0.60 0.52 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.01 Upper bound (average annual rate) 2.23 1.02 1.25 0.14 1.91 0.87 1.07 0.12 1.02 0.47 0.57 0.06 0.87 0.75 0.40 0.03 0.03 0.01 Upper bound (max. labeled rate) 11.8 5.42 6.65 0.74 10.1 4.63 5.68 0.63 5.42 2.48 3.05 0.34 4.63 3.96 2.12 0.16 0.14 0.08 Shaded cells indicate that RQ values exceed the LOC for chronic risk to listed and non-listed species (RQ > 1). 
63 

4.3. Risk Description 

4.3.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms 

This assessment considered tebufenozide parent compound and transformation products (TTR) 

as outlined in the Problem Formulation and based on intra-Agency regarding residues of 

concern. The TTR RQ values for most tebufenozide uses exceed the Agency’s LOCs for acute 

risk to listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates and for chronic risks to freshwater 

animals, including invertebrates, fish, and amphibians. Risk conclusions for estuarine/marine 

invertebrates also apply to freshwater molluscs in this assessment because they are based upon 

estuarine/marine mollusc toxicity data. 

The risk estimates for aquatic organisms may overestimate risk from exposure to parent 

tebufenozide since degradates were also considered in the exposure calculations but were found 

to be less toxic than tebufenozide, up to their limit of water solubility. Therefore, parent only 

EECs and RQ values were calculated for three scenarios representing a range of tebufenozide 

application rates. These values illustrate the contribution of tebufenozide parent to TTR EECs 

used in risk estimation, across the range of registered uses (Figures 4.1 through 4.3). For the use 

on trees, forests, and shrubs, which is the lowest labeled use rate for tebufenozide (0.125 lbs 

a.i./A with an annual maximum of 0.25 lbs a.i./A/year), exposure to tebufenozide parent only 

does not present aquatic risks of concern. For uses in the mid-range of application scenarios, 

such as canola (0.25 lbs a.i./A with an annual maximum of 1.0 lb a.i./A/year), consideration of 

parent only brings certain aquatic risks below levels of concern, but chronic risks to 

estuarine/marine invertebrates are still expected to exceed the LOC. For uses with higher annual 

application rates, such as fruiting vegetables (0.25 lbs a.i./A with an annual maximum of 2.0 lbs 

a.i./A), chronic risks to freshwater fish and amphibians are below the LOC when considering 

parent only. However, acute risks to listed estuarine/marine invertebrates, chronic risks to 

estuarine/marine invertebrates, and chronic risks to freshwater invertebrates are of concern 

regardless of the exposure calculation used. Thus, the consideration of TTR versus parent only 

in exposure and risk estimation has only minimal impact on the risk conclusions in this 

assessment. Nonetheless, since the transformation products are less toxic than the parent 

compound, future ecological risk assessments may consider modeling tebufenozide parent only. 

Figure 4.1. Comparison of peak surface water EECs for tebufenozide TTR and parent only to the acute risk 

to listed species level of concern for estuarine/marine invertebrates and freshwater molluscs. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Canola (aerial) Canola (ground) Fruiting

vegetables

(aerial)

Fruiting

vegetables

(ground)

Trees, forests,

shrubs (aerial)

Trees, forests,

shrubs (ground)

Peak Surface Water EEC (ug/L)

Parent TTR (Remainder)

Acute risk to listed species LOC = 25 ug/L

(based on Eastern oyster)
64 

Figure 4.2. Comparison of 21-day surface water EECs for tebufenozide TTR and parent only to the chronic 

risk levels of concern for aquatic invertebrates. 

Figure 4.3. Comparison of 60-day surface water EECs for tebufenozide TTR and parent only to the chronic 

risk level of concern for freshwater fish. 

Exposure to undiluted bog water from the use on cranberry (calculated using the provisional 

cranberry model) results in TTR RQ values that exceed LOCs for all aquatic animals. 

Specifically, there is concern for acute risks to listed species of freshwater fish, amphibians, and 

invertebrates; acute risks to listed and non-listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates; and 

chronic risks to freshwater fish, amphibians, and invertebrates; should they be exposed to treated 

cranberry bog water. In the SWCC simulations spray drift constituted a substantial portion (16.2 

to 94.7%) of the pesticide loadings to the water body, and is thus an important contributor to offsite exposure. 

Chronic exposure to tebufenozide caused reproductive impairments in fish at test concentrations 

that are approximately one-half of the 21-day and 60-day mean TTR EECs for the use on 

cranberry. These impairments included alterations in ovarian stage in female fathead minnow 

exposed to tebufenozide for 21 days and reductions in the number of eggs per spawn in a full life 

cycle study with fathead minnow. In freshwater invertebrates, tebufenozide exposure for 21-

days in separate studies resulted in a lower number of offspring produced (formulated 

tebufenozide) and reduced growth (dry weight), respectively. Each of these studies was 

conducted under flow-through conditions. Cranberry EECs reflect concentrations of TTR in 

undiluted bog water at depth 12 inches, with degradation processes assumed to occur under both 

dry (pre-flood) and flooded conditions. Partitioning to sediments is also accounted for in the 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Canola (aerial) Canola (ground) Fruiting

vegetables

(aerial)

Fruiting

vegetables

(ground)

Trees, forests,

shrubs (aerial)

Trees, forests,

shrubs (ground)

21ͲDay Surface Water EEC

(ug/L)

Parent TTR (Remainder)

Chronic risk to freshwater invertebrates

LOC = 29 ug/L

(based on water flea)

Chronic risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates

LOC < 7.9 ug/L

(based on acuteͲtoͲchronic ratio)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Canola (aerial) Canola (ground) Fruiting

vegetables

(aerial)

Fruiting

vegetables

(ground)

Trees, forests,

shrubs (aerial)

Trees, forests,

60

shrubs (ground)

ͲDay Surface Water EEC

(ug/L)

Parent TTR (Remainder)

Chronic risk to freshwater fish and amphibians

LOC = 50 ug/L

(based on fathead minnow)
65 

model, and EECs are estimates of concentrations in cranberry bogs, and generally conservative 

estimates of concentrations in waters to which cranberry bogs may discharge. 

Although RQ values were not calculated for acute risks to estuarine/marine fish or for chronic 

risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates, it is likely that these risks will parallel those that are 

quantified with RQ values. For estuarine/marine fish, the available data may be conservatively 

interpreted to conclude that acute risk exceeds the LOC for listed species from use on cranberry, 

but not for other uses. Actual risk to estuarine/marine fish may be somewhat lower than for 

freshwater fish. The LC50 for sheepshead minnow (>720 ȝg a.i./L) was empirically determined 

to be greater than the solubility of tebufenozide in water and thus at least 21 times greater than 

peak surface water EECs for most uses. However, for the use on cranberry, this highest test 

concentration is only 2.6 times the peak surface water EEC (TTR). 

Chronic risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates is likely to exceed the LOC for use on cranberry. 

Tebufenozide exposure over 28-days significantly reduced reproduction and survival in mysid 

shrimp at exposure concentrations of 22 ȝg a.i./L and above. The LOAEL is approximately onefifth of the 21-day EEC for cranberry. Refinements to the cranberry model are not currently 

available. However, to the extent that residues from cranberry bog water are diluted via mixing 

with waters from other (uncontaminated) sources upon release of bog water, exposures to nontarget aquatic organisms are likely to be overestimated by the Provisional Cranberry model’s 

EECs. 

There is uncertainty regarding chronic risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates from non-cranberry 

uses of tebufenozide (21-day TTR EECs: 1.39 to 12.3 ȝg a.i./L) because a lower bound 

(NOAEC) was not established for adverse effects in mysid shrimp and because chronic toxicity 

data are not available for the mollusc. The mollusc was more sensitive in the acute shell 

deposition test than the mysid under acute exposure conditions. Estimation of a chronic mollusc 

toxicity endpoint, based on the non-definitive acute-to-chronic ratio for mysid shrimp (> 64), 

yields a NOAEC of < 7.9 ȝg a.i./L; this estimated value is within the range of 21-day TTR EECs 

for non-cranberry uses at maximum labeled application rates. 

The existing toxicity data for invertebrates may under predict hazard and risk from tebufenozide 

exposure at certain developmental stages, since the guideline laboratory studies with the honey 

bee do not explicitly test exposure at molting. There is also an incomplete understanding of 

potential adverse effects on sediment-dwelling invertebrates. Two nonguideline toxicity studies 

with the freshwater midge (Order: Diptera, Chironomus riparius), which undergoes four aquatic 

larval instars prior to pupating into an adult fly, suggest the potential for adverse effects at 

surface water concentrations lower than those currently identified as risk assessment endpoints. 

The measured concentrations associated with effects in both studies (> 3.3 ug/L overlying water, 

> 0.44 ug/L pore water, > 5.5 ug/kg dry sediment) are below the peak and chronic (e.g., 21-day 

moving average) TTR EECs for registered uses of tebufenozide (112 ug/L overlying water, 96.3 

ug/L pore water, 440 ug/kg dry sediment). However, the studies tested a sediment-associated 

(epibenthic) species with only water column exposure, the test systems had not reached 

equilibrium, and one of the two studies presented effects at all treatment levels. Therefore, 

chronic (e.g., 28-day) spiked sediment toxicity data which establish definitive NOAEC values 

are needed to quantitatively assess risk to epibenthic organisms. Such data may also address 
66 

uncertainties regarding potential developmental effects on non-target (i.e., non-lepidopteran) 

invertebrates. 

For aquatic plants, tebufenozide exposure in laboratory experiments had no significant effects on 

duckweed (vascular plants) or algae (nonvascular plants). The RQ values for all tebufenozide 

uses are below LOCs for listed species of aquatic vascular and nonvascular plants. Therefore, 

risk to non-listed aquatic plant species is also below LOCs. 

4.3.2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms 

4.3.2.1. Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians 

Screening-level RQ values are calculated in the Risk Estimation section for chronic risk to birds, 

which serve as surrogates in this assessment for reptiles and amphibians exposed to tebufenozide 

in the terrestrial diet. RQ values for acute and sub-acute exposures were not calculated because 

no mortality was observed at the highest treatment levels tested in the avian acute oral and subacute dietary studies. To gain a better understanding of how the EECs for the maximum 

tebufenozide application rates for the assessed uses relate to the toxicity data currently available 

for birds, dietary- and dose-based EECs from the T-REX model are compared to the highest 

treatment concentrations in the avian acute and sub-acute toxicity tests, where no mortality or 

sublethal effects were observed. 

For agricultural uses of tebufenozide, the maximum avian dose-based EEC is 391 mg a.i./kg bw 

(small birds consuming short grass) for use on tree nuts, including walnuts. The maximum avian 

dose-based EEC for non-agricultural uses is 302 mg/kg bw (small birds consuming short grass) 

for ornamentals. These EECs are approximately 18% and 14%, respectively, of the maximum 

dose tested (2,150 mg/kg bw) in the acute oral toxicity test with bobwhite quail. The maximum 

dietary-based EECs (not dose-adjusted) for agricultural and non-agricultural uses of tebufenozide 

are 344 mg/kg diet (short grass) and 265 mg/kg diet (short grass) for tree nuts and ornamentals, 

respectively. The dietary EECs reach 7% of the maximum concentration tested (5,000 mg/kg 

diet) in the sub-acute dietary toxicity tests with bobwhite quail and mallard duck. 

It is unknown whether passerine species may be more sensitive to tebufenozide exposure than 

the bobwhite quail and mallard duck. Although acute toxicity testing with a passerine species is 

now required per 40 CFR Part 158.630 (2008), a data call-in for passerine testing was not issued 

at the time of Problem Formulation. However, given the absence of mortality or sublethal 

effects at limit doses which are approximately five-to-ten times greater than maximum EECs, the 

risk of acute mortality in birds from ingestion of tebufenozide residues is likely low. No 

ecological incidents with birds, reptiles, or terrestrial-phase amphibians have been reported 

(ABC 2007, USEPA 2012). While the absence of incident reports cannot be construed as 

indicative of the absence of incidents, the lack of incident reports is consistent with the apparent 

low acute toxicity of tebufenozide to birds. 

Tebufenozide use consistent with labeled application rates result in chronic risk LOC 

exceedances for animals that forage on items similar to short grass, tall grass, and broadleaf 

plants. The RQ values for chronic risk to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial-phase amphibians exceed 
67 

the LOC for most uses of tebufenozide. Additionally, chronic risk to insectivores exceeds the 

LOC for uses with a maximum annual application rate greater than 1.25 lbs a.i./A (i.e., fruiting 

vegetables, mint, pome fruits, tree nuts, and ornamentals). 

Tebufenozide exposure at 300 mg/kg diet during the pre-egg-laying and egg laying phase was 

associated with fewer 14-day hatchling survivors in bobwhite quail (NOAEC = 100 mg/kg diet). 

No effects were reported in mallard duck or in a second study with bobwhite quail, although 

body weight data were not provided for verification. Figure 4.4 compares mean and upperbound dietary EECs for each labeled use with adverse effect concentrations in bobwhite quail. 

The EECs shown represent residues on short grass, which are expected to be higher than residues 

on other types of forage items. 

Figure 4.4. Comparison of dietary EECs to the concentration causing adverse effects on avian reproduction in 

the laboratory. 

The upper-bound EECs for the uses on pome fruits and tree nuts, including almond, walnut, and 

other nuts, exceed the concentration associated with fewer 14-day hatchling survivors in 

bobwhite quail. For the use on tree nuts, the NOAEL is exceeded with the first application of 

0.47 lbs ai/A and the LOAEL is exceeded with the fourth application (Figure 4.5). Residues on 

short grass remain above the NOAEL for the first seven days following the first application and 

then continuously for the second and all subsequent applications. Similarly, residues remain 

above the LOAEL for the first seven days following the fourth application. 

0

100

200

300

400

EECs (mg/kg diet)

Labeled Uses

Mean Kenaga EEC (Max Label Rate) Upper Bound Kenaga EEC (Max Label Rate)

Fewer 14Ͳd hatchling survivors at 300 mg/kg diet

No effects at 100 mg/kg diet
68 

Figure 4.5. Duration of exposure to dietary residues from use on tree nuts (almonds, walnuts, and other nuts) 

compared to chronic avian toxicity endpoints for tebufenozide.

4.3.2.2. Mammals 

The uses on tree nuts and pome fruit result in the highest RQ values for acute risk to mammals (0.03) 

which are below LOCs for acute risk to listed and non-listed species. Thus, there are no acute risks 

of concern to mammals exposed to tebufenozide as a result of its registered uses. 

However, all assessed uses at the maximum labeled application rates result in RQ values that exceed 

the LOC for chronic risk to mammals, when dose-adjusted EECs are considered (mg/kg bw/day). 

When EECs are expressed in terms of dietary concentrations (mg/kg diet) only, and not adjusted for 

body weight, most of the resulting RQ values for residues on short grass either approach or slightly 

exceed the chronic risk LOC. The chronic RQ value for forestry use is the lowest (0.27), and the 

chronic RQ value for use on tree nuts, including almond, walnut, and other nuts, is the highest (1.72). 

These dietary (non-dose-adjusted) EECs and RQ values are most relevant to mammals with similar 

body weight (range: 120-174 g) and food intake rate as those tested in the laboratory study (MRID 

43797701). 

The effects observed above the NOAEC that was used to generate RQ values include adverse effects 

on body weight and body weight gain in parents and offspring, and, in a different study, adverse 

effects on reproduction (e.g., fewer implantations, longer gestation period). Lesions of the spleen 

were identified in both studies at the treatment level identified as the NOAEC for risk estimation. 

Although HED determined that these lesions were of toxicological significance, risk estimates for 

wild mammals are historically based on apical effects on survival, growth, and reproduction, and not 

on histological observations alone. 

For tebufenozide, the LOAEC value for apical effects was ten times greater than the NOAEC value. 

Therefore, for RQ values between 1 and 10 (all uses except tree nuts and pome fruit), there is less 

certainty as to whether adverse apical effects may occur based on the laboratory studies. 

0

100

200

300

400

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224 252 280 308 336 364

EECs (mg/kg diet)

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants

Fruits/pods/seeds Arthropods

Time (Days; Day 0 = 1st application)

Fewer 14Ͳd hatchling survivors at 300 mg/kg diet

No effects at 100 mg/kg diet
69 

Tebufenozide use at the maximum labeled rates on tree nuts and pome fruit results in chronic RQ 

values of 11.7 and 11.2, which reflect dose-adjusted EECs above the LOAEC. 

When dietary EECs are based on the average annual application rate instead of the maximum rate 

permitted by the label, all resulting dietary RQ values are below the chronic risk LOC. For doseadjusted EECs, the average use on tree nuts results in RQ values of 0.79 (mean Kenaga nomogram 

EEC) to 2.23 (upper-bound Kenaga nomogram EEC) for residues on short grass. Survey data 

indicate that average application rates for other registered uses are lower than that for the use on tree 

nuts. Therefore, RQ values are also expected to be lower. 

The RQ values for mammals that eat strictly fruits, pods, and grains, are below the chronic risk LOC 

for all uses. 

4.3.2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates 

The honey bee is used as a representative species to assess the risks of tebufenozide use to of 

terrestrial invertebrates, particularly bees. Risk quotient values for honey bees were not calculated 

because only one Tier 1 endpoint was available (acute contact toxicity to adult honey bees) and that 

value was nondefinitive (LD50 > 234 ȝg ai/bee). For characterization purposes, a Tier 1 exposure 

estimate (EEC) for contact toxicity was calculated according to methods in the Guidance for 

Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees (US EPA 2014) by multiplying the maximum single 

application rate (0.47 lbs ai/A for use on tree nuts) by a constant of of 2.7 ȝg a.i./bee, which 

yields an EEC of 1.27 ȝg a.i./bee. When the EEC is divided by the nondefinitive honey bee toxicity 

endpoint, the resulting value is < 0.01, which is below the LOC for acute risk to terrestrial 

invertebrates (RQ >0.4). 

Tebufenozide is registered as an insect growth regulator. Although intended to target lepidopterans, 

there is uncertainty as to whether it may have adverse effects on other developing insects, including 

the honey bee. Nonguideline data submissions by the registrant showed mixed effects but suggested 

a pattern of adverse effects on larval development, including instances of fewer capped brood and 

transient larval and adult mortality events in various studies. Data for methoxyfenozide, a structural 

analog of tebufenozide, generally showed no adverse effects to honey bee larvae and pupae 

development colony overwintering survival at the exposure concentrations tested under semifield and field conditions (MRIDs 45065501, 48962201, and 48962202). However, preliminary 

review of a recently submitted larval toxicity study with methoxyfenozide suggests that honey bee 

larvae may be sensitive to dietary exposure under laboratory feeding conditions (MRID 49672801). 

Additional data on honey bee larval toxicity and brood development following exposure to 

tebufenozide would help resolve this uncertainty. The EECs and acute contact toxicity data for adult 

honey bees exposed to tebufenozide indicate low risk of mortality to adult honey bees. 

4.3.2.4. Terrestrial Plants 

Treatment with tebufenozide in a greenhouse study resulted in statistically significant differences 

(p<0.05) in seedling emergence and vegetative vigor endpoints in one out of ten species tested in 

each study. Although the effects in these two dicot species were statistically significant, no 

inhibition equal to or greater than 25% was observed in either study. Specifically, dry weight was 

lower in radish exposed to tebufenozide in a vegetative vigor study at 0.97 lbs a.i./A (-14%) and 

1.97 lbs a.i./A (-7%), when compared to controls. A statistically supported NOAEL was not 
70 

established. Similarly, a NOAEL was not established for dicot plants in the seedling emergence 

test: cabbage emergence was reduced by 14% compared to the negative control when treated 

with the lowest treatment rate of 0.98 lbs a.i./A (measured). 

The lowest treatment rate in the terrestrial plant toxicity tests (0.97 lbs ai/A) is two-to-eight times 

greater than the maximum single application rates for registered uses. Notably, the lowest rate is 

for cole crops and leafy vegetables (maximum single application rate: 0.12 lbs ai/A). 

The absence of a definitive NOAEL for the most sensitive dicot species may result in greater 

uncertainty in risk assessments for listed plants. However, risk may be characterized based on 

labeled application rates by using the assumption that off-site exposure via runoff is 50% of the 

maximum application rate (or 0.47 lbs ai/A x 50% = 0.24 lbs ai/A). (This assumption is more 

conservative than TerrPlant EEC calculations, which result in a maximum EEC (runoff and spray 

drift combined) of 0.07 lbs ai/A.) If the concentration-response for cabbage is linear, then the 

conservative potential exposure from runoff adjacent to the field (0.24 lbs ai/A) may result in 7% 

reduction in seedling emergence of the most sensitive dicots. Overall, risk to non-listed species 

of terrestrial plants and risk to listed species in areas adjacent to the field is uncertain but likely low 

based on labeled application rates.

5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) 

As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA reviews 

numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. 

Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments 

of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. 

These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including 

effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual 

maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For 

ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, 

developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of the 

Preliminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review of tebufenozide, EPA reviewed these 

data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the 

existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), tebufenozide is 

subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). 

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide 

active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect 

produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator 

may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required 

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a 

chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal 

systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to 

interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA 

will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 

testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance and 

establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect. 
71 

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between 

October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 

chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of 

chemicals identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013, and includes some 

pesticides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water7

. Neither of these lists 

should be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. Tebufenozide is not on 

List 1. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of 

chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website8

. 

6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern 

In November 2013, the EPA, along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services), and the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), released a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks 

to listed species from pesticides. The Interim Approaches were developed jointly by the 

agencies in response to the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) recommendations. They 

reflect a common approach to risk assessment shared by the agencies as a way of addressing 

scientific differences between the EPA and the Services. The NAS report outlines 

recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of 

pesticide risk assessments that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with their 

obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and FIFRA. 

The joint Interim Approaches were released prior to a stakeholder workshop held on November 

15, 2013. In addition, the EPA presented the joint Interim Approaches at the December 2013 

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) and State-FIFRA Issues Research and 

Evaluation Group (SFIREG) meetings, and held a stakeholder workshop in April 2014, allowing 

additional opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the Interim Approaches. As part of a 

phased, iterative process for developing the Interim Approaches, the agencies will also consider 

public comments on the Interim Approaches in connection with the development of upcoming 

Registration Review decisions. The details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the 

white paper “Interim Approaches for National-Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act 

Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences April 2013 

Report,” dated November 1, 2013. 

Given that the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of the 

Interim Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their 

designated critical habitat, this preliminary risk assessment for tebufenozide does not contain a 

complete ESA analysis that would include effects determinations for individual listed species or 

designated critical habitat. Although EPA has not yet completed effects determinations for 

individual species or habitats, for this preliminary assessment, EPA conducted a screening-level 

assessment for all taxa of non-target wildlife and plants. The assessment assumes that listed 

species and designated critical habitats may be present in the vicinity of the application of 

 

7

 Available online at https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-14232. 8

 Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: http://www.epa.gov/endo. 
72 

tebufenozide. The screening level assessment will allow EPA to focus its future evaluations on 

the types of species where the potential for effects exists once the scientific methods being 

developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. This screening-level risk assessment for 

tebufenozide TTR indicates potential risks of direct effects to listed terrestrial and aquatic 

animals, including vertebrates and certain species of sensitive invertebrates, on some of its 

registered use sites; however, chronic risks to aquatic vertebrates are below levels of concern for 

tebufenozide parent compound (as opposed to TTR). Other listed species may be affected 

through indirect effects because of the potential for direct effects on listed and non-listed species 

upon which such species may rely. Additionally, potential direct effects on listed species from 

the use of tebufenozide may be associated with modification of Primary Constituent Elements 

(PCEs) of designated critical habitats, where such designations have been made. Once the 

agencies have fully developed and implemented the scientific methods necessary to complete 

risk assessments for endangered and threatened (listed) species and their designated critical 

habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses for tebufenozide as part of 

completing this registration review. 

 7. Conclusions 

Tebufenozide is an insect growth regulator registered for use on a variety of field and orchard 

crops, pastures, forests, trees, shrubs, and other ornamentals. The draft ecological risk 

assessment hypothesizes that tebufenozide residues may reach ecological receptors in both 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats and that exposure to these residues may cause adverse effects in 

vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants in these environments. 

When the best available data on tebufenozide use, environmental fate and transport, and 

ecotoxicity are considered, risks to most terrestrial wildlife taxa (including plants) are below 

levels of concern (LOCs). However, as an insect growth regulator, tebufenozide may pose risks 

to non-target terrestrial invertebrates which are not captured by the existing acute mortality tests. 

Tebufenozide use at maximum labeled rates presents chronic risks of adverse effects on growth 

and reproduction in terrestrial vertebrates, although risks at average application rates are lower 

and generally below LOCs. Most uses present risks that exceed LOCs for mortality of listed 

estuarine/marine invertebrates (and freshwater molluscs, by proxy) and for chronic risks to 

freshwater vertebrates and invertebrates, based on exposure to tebufenozide TTR. Risk of 

mortality from the use on cranberry also exceeds the nonlisted species LOC for estuarine/marine 

invertebrates exposed to undiluted bog flood water. Nonguideline data suggest that benthic 

organisms, such as freshwater midge larvae (Order: Diptera), may be more sensitive to 

tebufenozide exposure than fully aquatic invertebrates such as daphnia (Order: Cladocera) and 

mysid shrimp (Order: Mysida). Chronic (28-day) sediment toxicity data are needed to 

quantitatively assess risks. When only tebufenozide parent is considered, fewer uses result in 

LOC exceedances, and chronic risk to freshwater fish and amphibians is below the LOC. Future 

ecological risk assessments may consider modeling exposure to tebufenozide parent only, since 

data described in this assessment indicate that the aquatic toxicity of tebufenozide degradates is 

less than that of the parent compound. 

Refinements to the cranberry model are not currently available. However, to the extent that 

residues from cranberry bog water are diluted via mixing with waters from other, 
73 

uncontaminated sources upon bog release, exposures to non-target aquatic organisms are likely 

to be overestimated by the Provisional Cranberry model’s EECs. 

8. References 

Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association. 2001. Cranberry Water Use: An Information Fact 

Sheet. June, 2001. Online at: http://www.cranberries.org/pdf/wateruse.pdf. Accessed 

Mar. 17, 2010. 

Dhadialla, T., Carlson, G., & Le, D. (1998). New insecticides with ecdysteroidal and juvenile 

hormone activity. Annual Reviews in Entomology, 43, 545-569. 

Fletcher, J., Nellessen, J., & Pfleeger, T. (1994). Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13, 1383-1391. 

Hoerger, F., & Kenaga, E. (1972). Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data 

as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston, & F. 

Korte (eds.), Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology

(pp. 9-28). Stuttgart: Gerog Thieme Publ. 

Shimizu, B., Nakagawa, Y., Hattori, K., Nishimura, K., Kurihara, N., & Ueno, T. (1997). 

Molting hormonal and larvicidal activities of aliphatic acyl analogs of 

dibenzoylhydrazine insecticides. Steroids, 62, 638-642. 

Sundaram, M., Palli, S., Sohi, S., Dhadialla, T., & Retmakaran, A. (1998). Basis for selective 

action of a synthetic molting hormone agonist, RH-5992, on lepidopteran insects. Insect 

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 28, 693-704. 

Tassou, K., & Schulz, R. (2013). Low field-relevant tebufenozide concentrations affect 

reproduction in Chironomus riparius (Diptera: Chironomidae) in a long-term toxicity test. 

Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 3735-3742. 

US EPA. (2010). Tebufenozide: Review of a request for waiver for guideline 850.3040 Field 

testing for pollinators using Apis mellifera (honey bee). Washington, DC: US EPA Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 

Willis, G., & McDowell, L. (1987). Pesticide persistence on foliage. Reviews of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology, 100, 23-73. 
74 

OPPIN Bibliographies by Subpart or Test Guideline 

Part 161(x) – 165(x) 

161-1 Hydrolysis 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436204 Reynolds, J.; Wang, W. (1992) Hydrolysis of ?carbon 14|-RH-5992 in Water at pH 5, 

pH 7, and pH 9: Lab Project Number: XBL 90001: XBL RPT0056: RH 34-91-33. 

Unpublished study prepared by XenoBiotic Labs, Inc. 63 p. 

161-2 Photodegradation-water 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436205 Reynolds, J. (1992) Photolysis of ?carbon 14|-RH-5992 in Pond Water: Lab Project 

Number: XBL 92003: XBL RPT 0095: RH 34P-92-04. Unpublished study prepared by 

XenoBiotic Labs, Inc. 82 p. 

161-3 Photodegradation-soil 

MRID Citation Reference 

42991512 Reynolds, J. (1991) Soil Photolysis of (carbon 14)-RH-5992: Lab Project Number: 

XBL 91001: RPT0072: 34P-90-65. Unpublished study prepared by XenoBiotic Labs, 

Inc. 87 p. 

162-1 Aerobic soil metabolism 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436206 Reynolds, J. (1992) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of ?carbon 14|-RH-5992: Lab Project 

Number: XBL 90003: XBL RPT0077: RH 34P-90-46. Unpublished study prepared by 

XenoBiotic Labs, Inc. 194 p. 

162-3 Anaerobic aquatic metab. 

MRID Citation Reference 

42931216 Reynolds, J. (1992) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (Carbon 14) RH-5992: Lab 

Project Number: XBL 91003: RPT0097: 34-92-53. Unpublished study prepared by 

XenoBiotic Labs, Inc. 99 p. 

162-4 Aerobic aquatic metab. 

MRID Citation Reference 
75 

42436207 Reynolds, J. (1992) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of ?carbon 14|-RH-5992: Lab Project 

Number: XBL 89051: XBL RPT0034: 34P-89-30. Unpublished study prepared by 

XenoBiotic Labs, Inc. 296 p. 

163-1 Leach/adsorp/desorption 

MRID Citation Reference 

42931218 Reynolds, J. (1992) Aged Leaching of (Carbon 14)-RH-5992: Lab Project Number: 

XBL 92001: RPT00108: 34-92-74. Unpublished study prepared by XenoBiotic Labs, 

Inc. 106 p. 

42931219 Dong, L. (1992) RH-112651: Soil Adsorption and Desorption: Lab Project Number: 

34-92-82: TR34-92-82: 34P-92-50. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas 

Co. 182 p. 

43517602 Hawkins, D. (1995) RH-5992: Aged Leaching Study, Supplemental to Technical 

Report 34-92-74 "Aged Leaching of (carbon 14)-RH-5992" MRID No. 42931218: Lab 

Project Number: 34/95/12. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 7 p. 

164-1 Terrestrial field dissipation 

MRID Citation Reference 

42931222 Hawkins, D. (1992) RH-5992 Terrestrial Field Dissipation: Interim Report: Lab Project 

Number: 34-92-61: TR34-92-47: 34P-91-04. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm 

and Haas Co. 128 p. 

42931223 Yajima, K. (1992) Dissipation Study of RH-5992 in Upland Soil (English Translation): 

Lab Project Number: 34-92-81: TR34-92-81. Unpublished study prepared by 

Agricultural Chemical Technical Center. 106 p. 

42991514 Hawkins, D. (1993) RH-5992: Terrestrial Field Dissipation at Two Sites in California: 

Lab Project Number: 34-93-59: 34P-91-04: TR34-93-59. Unpublished study prepared 

by Pan-Agricultural Labs, Inc. and Centre Analytical Lab. 675 p. 

43517601 Deakyne, R.; Chen, J. (1995) Supplemental Report (Including 24 Month Data) to "RH5992 Soil Storage Stability" MRID 42991513: Lab Project Number: 43/95/11. 

Unpublished study prepared by Centre Analytical Laboratories. 151 p. 

43797703 Hawkins, D. (1994) RH 5992: Terrestrial Field Dissipation in New York and 

Washington: Lab Project Number: 34/94/139. Unpublished study prepared by PanAgricultural Labs, Inc. and Centre Analytical Lab. 741 p. 

44414302 Hawkins, D. (1997) RH-5992: Soil Dissipation in New York and Washington: 

Supplemental to Technical Report 34-94-139: Lab Project Number: 34-97-123: 34-94-

139: TR34-97-123. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 57 p. 

164-2 Aquatic field dissipation 

MRID Citation Reference 

44125402 Keller, L. (1996) Tebufenozide (RH-5992): Rapid Dissipation in Aquatic Matrices and 

Safety to Aquatic Nontarget Organisms in Forestry and Other Environments: Lab 
76 

Project Number: 96R-1069: 34-95-144: 93RC-1003. Unpublished study prepared by 

Rohm and Haas Co. 321 p. 

164-3 Forest field dissipation 

MRID Citation Reference 

43935604 Burnett, T. (1995) RH-5992 Terrestrial Dissipation Study on Forestry Matrices (in a 

Deciduous Environment): Lab Project Number: 34-95-97: TR 34-95-97: 34P-92-53. 

Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc.; Centre Analytical 

Labs, Inc. and Rohm and Haas Co. 969 p. 

43935605 Sharma, A. (1995) RH-5992 Forestry Dissipation Study in New York: Lab Project 

Number: 34-95-144: 34P-94-42: 34-95-90. Unpublished study prepared by A.C.D.S. 

Research, Inc.; Centre Analytical Labs; and Rohm and Haas Co. 904 p. 

44125402 Keller, L. (1996) Tebufenozide (RH-5992): Rapid Dissipation in Aquatic Matrices and 

Safety to Aquatic Nontarget Organisms in Forestry and Other Environments: Lab 

Project Number: 96R-1069: 34-95-144: 93RC-1003. Unpublished study prepared by 

Rohm and Haas Co. 321 p. 

164-5 Long term soil dissipation 

MRID Citation Reference 

43517601 Deakyne, R.; Chen, J. (1995) Supplemental Report (Including 24 Month Data) to "RH5992 Soil Storage Stability" MRID 42991513: Lab Project Number: 43/95/11. 

Unpublished study prepared by Centre Analytical Laboratories. 151 p. 

165-1 Confined rotational crop 

MRID Citation Reference 

44221904 Sharma, A.; Bergin, N. (1996) Confined Accumulation Study on Rotation Crops with 

(carbon 14)-RH-5992: Lab Project Number: 34-96-39: 34P-91-03. Unpublished study 

prepared by Rohm and Haas Co.; ABC Labs.; and Xenobiotics Labs. 833 p. 

165-2 Field rotational crop 

MRID Citation Reference 

44679102 Dong, L. (1998) RH-5992 Field Rotational Crop Studies (Residues in High Moisture 

Rotational Crops Including Leafy, Root, Fruiting, and Bulb Vegetables and Cucurbits): 

Lab Project Number: 1404. 46: 34P-95-69: 34P-96-69A. Unpublished study prepared 

by Rohm & Haas Company, and Centre Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 599 p. {OPPTS 

860.1900} 

44769503 Dong, L. (1999) RH-5992 (Tebufenozide) Field Rotational Crop Studies (Residues in 

Cereal Grains and Legumes): Supplemental to TR 34-98-153: Lab Project Number: 

34P-95-69: 34P-95-69A: 34P-95-104. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and 

Haas Company, and Centre Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 628 p. {OPPTS 860.1900} 
77 

45893202 Jones, G. (2003) RH-5992 2F Field Accumulation Study in Rotational Wheat and 

Soybean Crops Following Application to Leaf Lettuce: Lab Project Number: 34P-01-

02: 21801029: 21801030. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC. 

452 p. {OPPTS 860.1900} 

165-4 Bioaccumulation in fish 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436208 Hawkins, D. (1992) RH-5992: Soil Adsorption and Desorption: Lab Project Number: 

34-92-52. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm & Haas Co. 265 p. 

42436209 Reynolds, J. (1992) RH-5992 Bioconcentration and Elimination of ?carbon 14| 

Residues by Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus): Lab Project Number: 

86.0491.6136.140: 91-7-3880: 34-91-76. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Labs, Inc. 82 p. 

42931224 Dong, L; Hawkins, D. (1993) Dynamic Bioconcentration Study of RH-5992 with 

Bluegill Sunfish Metabolite Identification Phase: Lab Project Number: 34-93-45: TR34-

93-45: 92-7-4342. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 497 p. 

165-5 Bioaccum-aquatic non-target 

MRID Citation Reference 

43215301 Hawkins, D. (1994) RH-5992: Request for Waiver from the Requirement for an 

Accumulation in Aquatic Nontarget Organism Study: Lab Project Number: 34-94-26. 

Unpublished study. 7 p. 
78 

Series 835 

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism 

MRID Citation Reference 

47881101 Knowles, S. (2009) Waiver for US Aerobic Soil Study Requirement for Tebufenozide. 

Project Number: 091136. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC. 17 

p 
79 

Part 71(x) - 72(x) 

71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436234 Fletcher, D. (1987) 21-Day Acute Oral Toxicity Study with RH-5992 Technical in 

Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project Number: 87RC-0024: 87P-032: BLAL 87 QD 86. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bio-Life Assoc. 27 p. 

42436235 Fletcher, D. (1990) 8-Day Dietary LC50 Study with RH-5992 Technical in Bobwhite 

Quail: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 87RC-0054: 87P-211: BLAL-87 QC 92. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bio-Life Assoc. 34 p. 

42436236 Hohing, L. (1992) Analytical Chemistry Report of Analyses to Determine RH-5992 

Technical in Dietary Samples Administered in the 8-Day LC50 Bobwhite Quail Study 

(Supp): Lab Project Number: 417-483: 87RC-054A. Unpublished study prepared by 

Hazleton Washington, Inc. 27 p. 

42436237 Fletcher, D. (1992) 8-Day Dietary LC50 with RH-5992 Technical in Mallard Ducklings: 

Lab Project Number: 87RC-0055|: 87P-210: BLAL 87 DC 93. Unpublished study 

prepared by Bio-Life Assoc. 33 p. 

42436238 Hohing, L. (1992) Analytical Chemistry Report of Analyses to Determine RH-5992 

Technical in Dietary Samples Administered in the 8-Day LC50 Mallard Ducklings 

Study. (Supp): Lab Project Number: 417-483: 87RC-055A. Unpublished study 

prepared by Hazleton Washington, Inc. 27 p. 

71-4 Avian Reproduction 

MRID Citation Reference 

42991501 Beavers, J.; Ross, T.; Jaber, M. (1993) RH-5992 Technical: A One-Generation 

Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): Lab Project Number: 

129-147: 90RC-0267: HWA 417-481. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife 

International Ltd. 165 p. 

42991502 Reinert, K. (1993) RH-5992 Technical: Supplemental Report--One Generation 

Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus): Lab Project 

Number: 90RC-0267D: RH93-01: 90RC-267C. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm 

and Haas Co. 37 p. 

42991503 Beavers, J.; Ross, T.; Jaber, M. (1993) RH-5992 Technical: A One Generation 

Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): Lab Project Number: 129-

148: 90RC-0222: 91P-222. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 

161 p. 

43781701 Williams, B. (1995) RH-5992 Technical: Reproduction Study in Bobwhite Quail: Lab 

Project Number: 94RC-0023: RH59BWR-394: HWA 417-492. Unpublished study 

prepared by Ecological Planning and Toxicology, Inc. 160 p. 

46090101 Beavers, J.; Ross, T.; Jaber, M. (1993) RH-5992 Technical: A One-Generation 

Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). Project Number: 

129/147, 90RC/0267, 91RP/267. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife 

International, Ltd. 165 p. 
80 

46090102 Reinert, K. (1993) RH-5992 Technical: Supplemental Report - One Generation 

Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginanus). Project Number: 

90RC/0267D, TD/93M/486, RH93/01. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and 

Haas Co. 37 p. 

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436239 Graves, W.; Smith, G. (1992) RH-5992 Technical: A 96-Hour Static Acute Toxicity 

Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 

129A-108: 90RC-0063. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Intl. Ltd. 123 p. 

42436240 Graves, W.; Smith, G. (1992) RH-5992 Technical: A 96-Hour Static Acute Toxicity 

Test with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorrhynchus mykiss): Lab Project Number: 129A110: 90RC-0064. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Intl. Ltd. 123 p. 

47926502 Madsen, T. (2003) RH-112651: An Acute Toxicity Study with the Bluegill, Lepomis 

macrochirus Rafinesque. Project Number: 47587, 021258. Unpublished study 

prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 50 p. 

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436241 Graves, W.; Smith, G. (1992) RH-5992 Technical: A 48-Hour Static Acute Toxicity 

Test with the Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 129A109: 90RC-0065. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Intl. Ltd. 122 p. 

43699701 Heusel, R. (1995) HOE 105540-Water Miscible Suspension Concentrate 240 g/L: 

Effect to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) in a Static-Acute Toxicity Test (Method OECD): 

Lab Project Number: CE93/078: A53747. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst 

Schering AgrEvo GmbH. 37 p. 

72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms 

MRID Citation Reference 

42807701 Dionne, E. (1993) RH-5992 Technical--Acute Toxicity to Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea 

Virginica) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 93-3-

4700: 86.1192.6156.504: 92P-145. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, 

Inc. 67 p. 

42991504 Machado, M. (1993) RH-5992 Technical--Acute Toxicity to Sheepshead Minnow 

(Cyprinodon variegatus) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project 

Number: 93-3-4695: 86.1192.6157.505: 92RC-0146. Unpublished study prepared by 

Springborn Labs, Inc. 74 p. 

44945701 Dionne, E. (1998) Confirm 2F--Acute Toxicity to Northern Lobsters (Homarus 

americanus) Under Static Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 98-11-7561: 

86.1098.6226.585: 98RC-0210. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Laboratories, Inc. 67 p. 
81 

72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436242 Bettancourt, M. (1992) RH-5992 Technical: Toxicity to Fathead Minnow (Pimephales 

promelas) Embryos and Larvae: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 91-9-3923: 

86.0291.6133.120: 90RC-0212. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 

80 p. 

42436243 McNamara, P. (1991) RH-5992 Technical: The Chronic Toxicity to Daphnia magna 

under Flow-thru Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 91-7-3821: 

86.0291.6128.130: 90RC-0207. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 

101 p. 

42991505 Machado, M. (1992) RH-5992 Technical--Chronic Toxicity to Mysid Shrimp 

(Mysidopsis bahia) Under Flow-through Conditions: Amended Final Report: Lab 

Project Number: 91-8-3899: 86.0291.6129.530: 90RC-0208. Unpublished study 

prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 122 p. 

43145701 Surprenant, D. (1994) Supplement to: RH-5992 Technical--Toxicity to Fathead 

Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Embryos and Larvae: Lab Project Number: 91-9-

3923: 86.0291.6133.120: 90RC-212B. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Labs., Inc. 6 p. 

44080901 Sousa, J. (1996) RH-5992 Technical--Early Life-Stage Toxicity Test with Sheepshead 

Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 96-4-6452: 

86.0196.6201.520: 96RC-0005. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs., 

Inc. 101 p. 

44414301 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1997) RH-5992 Technical: A Flow-Through Life-Cycle 

Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia): Final Report: Lab Project 

Number: 129A-148A: 97RC-0118: 129/041197/MYS-LC/SU. Unpublished study 

prepared by Wildlife Int'l. Ltd. 169 p. Relates to letter L0000256. 

72-5 Life cycle fish 

MRID Citation Reference 

44221901 Rhodes, J.; Leak, T. (1996) Full Life-Cycle Toxicity of RH-5992 Technical to the 

Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Lab Project 

Number: 42408: 94RC-0025. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 

1000 p. 

44831501 Reinert, K.; Robertson, J.; Dhadialla, T. (1999) Full Life Cycle Toxicity of RH-5992 

Technical to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Under Flow--Through 

Conditions: Lab Project Number: 94RC-0025A. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm 

and Haas Company. 68 p. 
82 

Part 122(x) 

122-2 Aquatic plant growth 

MRID Citation Reference 

42436245 Hoberg, J. (1992) RH-5992 Technical: Toxicity to the Freshwater Green Alga, 

Selenastrum capricornutum: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 91-11-4002: 90RC0210: 86.0291.6131.430. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 59 p. 

42629501 Hoberg, J. (1992) RH-5992 Technical--Toxicity to the Freshwater Green Alga, 

Scenedesmus subspicatus: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 91-11-4010: 90RC0209: 86.0291.6130.460. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 69 p. 

42822201 Reinert, K. (1993) Supplement to (RH-5992 Technical)--Toxicity to the Freshwater 

Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum: Lab Project Number: 90RC-0210A. 

Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 11 p. 
83 

Series 850 

850.1010 Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity, test, freshwater daphnids 

MRID Citation Reference 

47926501 Hicks, S.; Leak, T. (2001) Acute Toxicity of RH-112, 703 Technical to the Water Flea, 

Daphnia magna, Under Static Conditions. Project Number: 46623, 01RC/0174, 

01P/174. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 55 p. 

47926505 Hicks, S.; Leak, T. (2001) Acute Toxicity of RH-96, 595 Technical to the Water Flea, 

Daphnia magna, Under Static Conditions. Project Number: 46619, 01RC/0108, 

01P/108. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 56 p. 

47926507 Hicks, S.; Leak, T. (2001) Acute Toxicity of RH-112, 651 Technical to the Water Flea, 

Daphnia magna, Under Static Conditions. Project Number: 46621, 01RC/0163, M102. 

Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 55 p. 

850.1075 Fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine 

MRID Citation Reference 

47926503 Hicks, S.; Leak, T. (2001) Acute Toxicity of RH-122,651 Technical to the Rainbow 

Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Under Static Conditions. Project Number: 46620, 

01RC/0162, M104. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 60 p. 

47926504 Hicks, S.; Leak, T. (2001) Acute Toxicity of RH-96, 595 Technical to the Rainbow 

Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Under Static Conditions. Project Number: 46618, 

01RC/0107, 01P/107. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 58 p. 

47926509 Hicks, S.; Leak, T. (2001) Acute Toxicity of RH-112, 703 Technical to the Rainbow 

Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Under Static Conditions. Project Number: 46622, 

01RC/0173, 01P/173. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 59 p. 

850.1400 Fish early-life stage toxicity test 

MRID Citation Reference 

48792201 Hicks, S. (2012) Tebufenozide: Short Term Reproduction Assay with the Fathead 

Minnow, Pimephales promelas, Determined Under Flow-through Conditions. Project 

Number: 65280. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. and 

Experimental Pathology Laboratories. 150p. 

850.1500 Fish life cycle toxicity 

MRID Citation Reference 

47890301 ABC Laboratories, Inc. (2009) Tebufenozide: Short Term Reproduction Assay with the 

Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas, Determined under Flow-Through Conditions. 

Unpublished study. 17 p. 
84 

850.3020 Honey bee acute contact toxicity 

MRID Citation Reference 

47929602 Labs, G. (1995) Side Effects of MIMIC 240SC on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Brood. 

Project Number: 95RC/1077. Unpublished study prepared by Royal Research Station 

of Gorsem. 24 p. 

47929603 Halsall, N. (2003) A Semi-Field Test to Evaluate the Effects of Mimic 2F, a 240 g/L SC 

Formulation of Tebufenozide on Brood Development of the Honeybee, Apis mellifera 

(Hymenoptera: Apidae). Project Number: DOW/03/08. Unpublished study prepared by 

Mambo-Tox, Ltd. 114 p. 

47929604 Bock, K. (1993) Hoe 105540; SC Water Miscible Suspension; 240 g/l (Hoe 105540 00 

SC23 A 103) Effects on the Honey Bee Apis mellifera L in a Cage Test (Semi-Field): 

(A51719: Translation of Doc No A51581). Project Number: CW93/024, A51719, 

A51581. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Marion Roussel Deutschland 

Gmbh. 37 p. 

850.3040 Field testing for pollinators 

MRID Citation Reference 

47929601 Norman, S. (2009) Tebufenozide: Request for Waiver of Field Testing for Pollinators 

Using Apis mellifera (Honeybee) . Project Number: 091146. Unpublished study 

prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC. 38 p. 

47929605 Nengal, S. (1996) Assessment of Side Effects of Rh-5992 2 F (Mimic 2 F) on the 

Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) in the Field by Application during Bee-Flight): Final 

Report. Project Number: 96173/01/BFEU, 96RC/1057. Unpublished study prepared 

by Arbeitsgemeinschaft GAB Biotechnologie. 60 p. 

47929606 Nengal, S. (1997) Assessment of Side Effects of Rh-5992 2F on the Honey Bee (Apis 

mellifera L.) in the Field by Application during Bee-Flight): Final Report. Project 

Number: 97078/01/BFEU, 97RC/1029. Unpublished study prepared by 

Arbeitsgemeinschaft GAB Biotechnologie. 58 p. 

49158701 Bocksch, S. (2013) Assessment of Side Effects of Tebufenozide on the Honeybee 

(Apis mellifera L.) in the Semi-Field after One Application in Phacelia tanacetifolia in 

Germany 2012. Project Number: S12/02218. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins 

- GAB GmbH. 220p. 

49158702 Kreidler, D. (2013) Analytical Phase Report: Assessment of Side Effects of 

Tebufenozide on the Honeybee (Apis Mellifera L. ) in the Semi-Field after One 

Application in Phacelia tanacetifolia in Germany 2012. Project Number: S12/02218. 

Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins AgroScience Services EcoChem GmbH. 

81p. 

850.4100 Terrestrial plant toxicity, Tier 1 (seeding emergence) 

MRID Citation Reference 

48533001 Porch, J. (2011) Confirm 2F TEP: Toxicity Effects on the Seedling Emergence of Ten 

Species of Plants. Project Number: 437/120. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife 
85 

International, Ltd. 80 p. 

850.4150 Terrestrial plant toxicity, Tier 1 (vegetative vigor) 

MRID Citation Reference 

48533002 Porch, J. (2011) Confirm 2F TEP: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the 

Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants. Project Number: 437/121. Unpublished 

study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 102 p. 

850.4400 Aquatic plant toxicity test using Lemna spp. Tiers I and II 

MRID Citation Reference 

48533003 Porch, J. (2011) Tebufenozide: A 7-Day Static-Renewal Toxicity Test with Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba G3). Project Number: 437A/122A. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wildlife International, Ltd. 68 p. 

48533004 Chafey, K. (2011) Determination of the Percent Active Ingredient of Tebufenozide in 

Tebufenozide Technical Material. Project Number: 437C/107. Unpublished study 

prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 28 p. 

 
86 

Appendix A. Chemical Names and Structures of Tebufenozide and its Degradates 

Chemical Name Chemical Structure 

Tebufenozide, Hoe 105540, RH-75992 

IUPAC name - N-tert-Butyl-Nƍ-(4-ethylbenzoyl)-3,5-

dimethylbenzohydrazide 

RH-112651 

IUPAC name - (4-[Nc-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-Nc-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)hydrazinocarbonyl]benzoic acid 

RH-112703 

IUPAC name - 4-[Nc-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-Nc-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)hydrazinocarbonyl]phenyl acetic acid 

RH-96595 

IUPAC name - N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-Nc-(4-

acetylbenzoyl)-3,5-dimethylbenzohydrazide 

H3C

O

N N

H3C CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H

O

N N

H3C CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H

HO2C

O

N N

H3C CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H

HO2C

O

N N

H3C CH3

CH3

O

CH3

CH3 H

O

H3C
87 

Appendix B. Provisional Cranberry Model Equations 

The Provisional Cranberry Model is a refinement of the Tier I Rice Model v1.0 

(Equations 1 and 2), which is a simple equilibrium partitioning equation that calculates a single, 

screening-level concentration in rice paddy water and released tailwater based on a compound’s 

application rate and soil mobility. 

Equations 1-2: Tier I Rice Model v1.0 (USEPA, 2007b).

  w sed sed b d

ai

w d d K

m C

T U3

2

0 10

10 '

   (1) 

and, if appropriate: 

Kd 01K OC 0. (2) 

where, 

 Cw0 = initial water concentration [μg/L] 

mai' = mass applied per unit area [kg/ha] 

Kd = water-sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg] 

KOC = organic carbon partitioning coefficient [L/kg] 

dw = water column depth = 0.10 m 

dsed = sediment depth = 0.01 m 

șsed = porosity of sediment = 0.509 

ȡb = bulk density of sediment = 1300 kg/m3

 First, the Tier I Rice Model was provisionally modified (Equation 3) to include as inputs 

degradation rate constants in order to estimate single, screening-level concentrations in paddy 

water or tailwater at a given time after application. 

Equation 3: Provisional Modified Rice Model (Jones, 2006).

d

kt

ai

w K

m e C

0.00105 0.00013

'

 



 (3) 

where, 

 Cw = water concentration [μg/L] 

t = interval since last application [d] 

k = upper 90th percentile degradation rate constant [1/d] 

 Then, the Provisional Modified Rice Model water column depth was increased to a depth 

that is used to flood cranberry bogs (i.e., 12 inches; Cape Cod Cranberry Growers

Association, 2001).
88 

i.e., 

dw = water column depth = 0.305 m 

 In order to model degradation prior to the flood at harvest, the application rates for n 

number of pre-harvest applications were independently degraded over the interim until flooding 

and then summed (Equation 4). 

Equation 4: Degradation in a Dry Bog. 

¦  u

n k t

ai ai n n m m e

1

2 ' ' (4) 

where, 

mai' = mass per unit area at flood [kg/ha] 

mai'n = mass applied per unit area on the nth application [kg/ha] 

k2 = upper 90th percentile degradation rate constant on dry bog [1/d] 

tn = interval from the nth application to harvest [d] 

n = number of pre-harvest applications 

These four equations and parameter sets constitute the Provisional Cranberry Model 

(Equations 1-4). 

Equations 2, 4, and 5: Provisional Cranberry Model.

¦  u

n k t

ai ai n n m m e

1

2 ' ' (4) 

where, 

mai' = mass per unit area at flood [kg/ha] 

mai'n = mass applied per unit area on the nth application [kg/ha] 

k2 = upper 90th percentile degradation rate constant on dry bog [1/d] 

tn = interval from the nth application to harvest [d] 

n = number of pre-harvest applications 

followed by: 

  w sed sed b d

kt

ai

w d d K

m e C

T U3

2

10

10 '





  (5) 

and, if appropriate: 

Kd 01K OC 0. (2) 
89 

where, 

 Cw = water concentration [μg/L] 

t = interval since flood [d] 

k = upper 90th percentile degradation rate constant [1/d] 

Kd = water-sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg] 

KOC = organic carbon partitioning coefficient [L/kg] 

dw = water column depth = 0.305 m 

dsed = sediment depth = 0.01 m 

șsed = porosity of sediment = 0.509 

ȡb = bulk density of sediment = 1300 kg/m3
90 

Appendix C. Surface Water Modeling (SWCC) Output Files 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (bushberries & caneberries, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the ORberriesOP field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 1.3% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(94.4% of the total transport), followed by runoff (5.57%) and erosion (0.04%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1272.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1348 days) followed 

by volatilization (22846 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1308.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1308.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 37.2 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 37.1 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 36.8 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 36.2 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 33.1 

Entire Simulation Mean 26.8 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario ORberriesOP 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 
91 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (bushberries & caneberries, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the ORberriesOP field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 0.7% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 
92 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(88.9% of the total transport), followed by runoff (11%) and erosion (0.08%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1272.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1348 days) followed 

by volatilization (22846 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1308.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1308.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 20.5 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 20.4 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 20.3 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 20.0 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 18.1 

Entire Simulation Mean 14.1 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario ORberriesOP 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 
93 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (canola, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the NDcanolaSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 1.7% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(72.1% of the total transport), followed by runoff (27.6%) and erosion (0.27%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1513.0 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1617.9 days) 

followed by volatilization (23340.5 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1570.5 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1570.5 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 
94 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 58.6 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 58.4 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 57.9 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 56.8 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 51.5 

Entire Simulation Mean 39.6 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario NDcanolaSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
95 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (canola, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the NDcanolaSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 1.1% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(55.2% of the total transport), followed by runoff (44.4%) and erosion (0.44%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1513.0 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1617.9 days) 

followed by volatilization (23340.5 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1570.5 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1570.5 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 40.1 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 40.0 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 39.6 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 38.7 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 34.7 
96 

Entire Simulation Mean 25.7 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario NDcanolaSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
97 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (citrus, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLcitrusSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the yearto-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 3.3% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(61.3% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (38.5%) and erosion (0.25%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 575.5 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 595.1 days) followed 

by volatilization (17534.8 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (577.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 577.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 60.4 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 60.2 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 59.2 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 58.1 
98 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 48.9 

Entire Simulation Mean 41.2 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLcitrusSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

5/28 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

6/12 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

6/26 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

7/10 Foliar 0.235 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
99 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (citrus, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLcitrusSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the yearto-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2.7% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(76.8% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (22.9%) and erosion (0.32%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 575.5 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 595.1 days) followed 

by volatilization (17534.8 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (577.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 577.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 51.6 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 51.4 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 50.8 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 49.7 
100 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 41.5 

Entire Simulation Mean 34.3 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLcitrusSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

5/28 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

6/12 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

6/26 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

7/10 Foliar 0.235 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
101 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (brassica, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLcabbageSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 3.4% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(62.8% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (37.2%) and erosion (0.05%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 630.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 650.7 days) followed 

by volatilization (20703.4 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (631.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 631.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 90.8 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 90.4 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 89.4 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 86.8 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 82.5 

Entire Simulation Mean 67.8 
102 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLcabbageSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

2/15 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

2/25 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

3/7 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

3/17 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

3/27 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

5/15 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

6/24 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

8/15 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

8/25 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

9/4 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

9/14 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 

9/24 Foliar 0.135 .95 .125 
103 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (brassica, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLcabbageSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2.8% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff (78% 

of the total transport), followed by spray drift (22%) and erosion (0.06%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 630.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 650.7 days) followed 

by volatilization (20703.4 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (631.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 631.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 78.8 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 78.5 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 77.4 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 75.1 
104 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 70.9 

Entire Simulation Mean 56.9 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLcabbageSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

2/15 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

2/25 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

3/7 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

3/17 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

3/27 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

5/15 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

6/24 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

8/15 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

8/25 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

9/4 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 
105 

9/14 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

9/24 Foliar 0.135 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (cotton, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the MScottonSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2.6% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff (50% 

of the total transport), followed by spray drift (48.6%) and erosion (1.41%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 786.1 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 813.7 days) followed 

by volatilization (23106.5 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (789.9 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 789.9 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 59.6 
106 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 59.4 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 58.8 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 56.8 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 47.3 

Entire Simulation Mean 33.8 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario MScottonSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
107 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (cotton, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the MScottonSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(67.1% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (31%) and erosion (1.89%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 786.1 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 813.7 days) followed 

by volatilization (23106.5 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (789.9 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 789.9 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 49.9 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 49.8 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 49.5 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 47.8 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 39.2 

Entire Simulation Mean 26.1 
108 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario MScottonSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
109 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (cranberry, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the ORberriesOP field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 1.3% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(94.7% of the total transport), followed by runoff (5.28%) and erosion (0.04%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1272.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1348 days) followed 

by volatilization (22846 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1308.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1308.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 37.4 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 37.3 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 37.0 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 36.5 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 33.3 

Entire Simulation Mean 26.7 
110 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario ORberriesOP 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/22 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/29 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/5 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
111 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (cranberry, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the ORberriesOP field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 0.69% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(89.5% of the total transport), followed by runoff (10.5%) and erosion (0.08%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1272.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1348 days) followed 

by volatilization (22846 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1308.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1308.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 20.5 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 20.5 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 20.3 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 20.0 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 18.4 

Entire Simulation Mean 14.0 
112 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario ORberriesOP 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/22 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/29 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/5 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
113 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (fruiting vegetables, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLpeppersSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 3.7% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(66.2% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (33.7%) and erosion (0.05%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 575.5 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 595.1 days) followed 

by volatilization (17534.8 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (577.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 577.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 112. 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 111. 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 111. 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 108. 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 93.4 

Entire Simulation Mean 76.0 
114 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLpeppersSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

7/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

7/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

8/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

8/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
115 

Image: SWCC output for fruiting vegetables with benthic (pore water and sediment) EECs. 
116 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (fruiting vegetables, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLpeppersSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 3.2% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(80.4% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (19.5%) and erosion (0.07%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 575.5 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 595.1 days) followed 

by volatilization (17534.8 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (577.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 577.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 99.4 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 99.0 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 98.1 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 95.8 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 82.1 

Entire Simulation Mean 65.3 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLpeppersSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 
117 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

7/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

7/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

8/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

8/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (mint, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the ORmintSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the yearto-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 
118 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 1.4% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(91.7% of the total transport) followed by runoff (8.31%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1272.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1348 days) followed 

by volatilization (22846 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1308.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1308.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 73.0 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 72.9 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 72.2 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 71.4 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 67.8 

Entire Simulation Mean 55.6 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario ORmintSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 
119 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

7/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

7/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

8/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

8/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (mint, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the ORmintSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the yearto-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 0.74% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(84% of the total transport), followed by runoff (16%) and erosion (0.01%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1272.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 
120 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1348 days) followed 

by volatilization (22846 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1308.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1308.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 40.4 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 40.3 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 39.9 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 39.5 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 37.6 

Entire Simulation Mean 30.2 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario ORmintSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 
121 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

7/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

7/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

8/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

8/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (ornamentals, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLnurserySTD_V2 field scenario. A graphical presentation of 

the year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface 

Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2.8% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(55.9% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (44%) and erosion (0.15%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 552.2 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 569.6 days) followed 

by volatilization (18091 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (552.9 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 552.9 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 
122 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 84.9 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 84.5 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 83.4 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 81.8 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 70.3 

Entire Simulation Mean 55.8 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLnurserySTD_V2 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/24 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

7/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

7/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

7/24 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 
123 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (ornamentals, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLnurserySTD_V2 field scenario. A graphical presentation of 

the year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface 

Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2.3% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(72.6% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (27.2%) and erosion (0.2%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 552.2 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 569.6 days) followed 

by volatilization (18091 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (552.9 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 552.9 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 70.9 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 70.6 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 69.7 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 68.3 
124 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 58.8 

Entire Simulation Mean 44.7 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLnurserySTD_V2 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/24 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

7/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

7/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

7/24 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
125 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (pome, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the NCappleSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2.2% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(57.9% of the total transport), followed by runoff (42%) and erosion (0.16%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1100.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1159.4 days) 

followed by volatilization (21824.1 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1125.4 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1125.4 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 96.4 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 96.1 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 95.2 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 93.5 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 84.4 

Entire Simulation Mean 70.5 
126 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario NCappleSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.347 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.347 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.347 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.347 .95 .125 

6/24 Foliar 0.347 .95 .125 

7/4 Foliar 0.347 .95 .125 

7/14 Foliar 0.017 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
127 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (pome, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the NCappleSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 1.6% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(60.3% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (39.5%) and erosion (0.23%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 1100.9 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1159.4 days) 

followed by volatilization (21824.1 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (1125.4 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 1125.4 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 72.2 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 72.0 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 71.6 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 70.0 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 62.7 

Entire Simulation Mean 51.2 
128 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario NCappleSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.347 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.347 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.347 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.347 .99 .062 

6/24 Foliar 0.347 .99 .062 

7/4 Foliar 0.347 .99 .062 

7/14 Foliar 0.017 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
129 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (sugarcane, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the LAsugarcaneSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 4.3% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(68.8% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (28.9%) and erosion (2.3%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 724.8 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 749.1 days) followed 

by volatilization (22381 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (727.2 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 727.2 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 86.7 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 86.4 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 85.7 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 84.3 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 72.6 

Entire Simulation Mean 52.3 
130 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario LAsugarcaneSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
131 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (sugarcane, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the LAsugarcaneSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 3.8% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(81.1% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (16.2%) and erosion (2.71%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 724.8 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 749.1 days) followed 

by volatilization (22381 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (727.2 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 727.2 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 79.6 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 79.3 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 78.6 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 76.9 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 66.5 

Entire Simulation Mean 46.0 
132 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario LAsugarcaneSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.28 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
133 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (almonds etc., aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the CAalmond_WirrigSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation 

of the year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface 

Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 1.5% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(82% of the total transport), followed by runoff (18%) and erosion (0.01%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 954.3 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 997.3 days) followed 

by volatilization (22091.5 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (968.1 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 968.1 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 59.6 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 59.4 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 58.9 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 57.6 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 51.7 

Entire Simulation Mean 45.9 
134 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario CAalmond_WirrigSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.527 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.527 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.527 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.527 .95 .125 

6/24 Foliar 0.023 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
135 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (almonds etc., ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the CAalmond_WirrigSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation 

of the year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface 

Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 0.91% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(68.4% of the total transport), followed by runoff (31.6%) and erosion (0.02%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 954.3 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 997.3 days) followed 

by volatilization (22091.5 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (968.1 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 968.1 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 35.2 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 35.1 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 34.9 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 34.1 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 30.4 

Entire Simulation Mean 27.2 
136 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario CAalmond_WirrigSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.527 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.527 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.527 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.527 .99 .062 

6/24 Foliar 0.023 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
137 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (pecans, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the GAPecansSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by spray drift 

(61.9% of the total transport), followed by runoff (38%) and erosion (0.14%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 742.1 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 761.9 days) followed 

by volatilization (28482.4 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (739.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 739.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 69.9 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 69.6 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 69.0 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 67.6 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 56.9 

Entire Simulation Mean 48.8 
138 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario GAPecansSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

5/23 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

5/31 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

6/8 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

6/16 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

6/24 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

7/2 Foliar 0.291 .95 .125 

7/10 Foliar 0.090 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
139 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (pecans, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the GAPecansSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 1.4% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(56.2% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (43.6%) and erosion (0.2%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 742.1 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 761.9 days) followed 

by volatilization (28482.4 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (739.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 739.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 52.0 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 51.8 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 51.3 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 50.2 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 43.3 

Entire Simulation Mean 34.4 
140 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario GAPecansSTD 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

5/23 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

5/31 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

6/8 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

6/16 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

6/24 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

7/2 Foliar 0.291 .99 .062 

7/10 Foliar 0.090 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
141 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (trees, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLnurserySTD_V2 field scenario. A graphical presentation of 

the year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface 

Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2.9% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(56.6% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (43.3%) and erosion (0.12%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 552.2 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 569.6 days) followed 

by volatilization (18091 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (552.9 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 552.9 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 12.4 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 12.3 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 12.1 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 11.7 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 9.88 

Entire Simulation Mean 7.10 
142 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLnurserySTD_V2 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.14 .95 .125 

5/20 Foliar 0.14 .95 .125 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
143 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (trees, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the FLnurserySTD_V2 field scenario. A graphical presentation of 

the year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface 

Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 2.3% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(73.2% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (26.7%) and erosion (0.16%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 552.2 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 569.6 days) followed 

by volatilization (18091 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (552.9 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 552.9 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 10.6 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 10.5 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 10.3 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 10.0 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 8.51 

Entire Simulation Mean 5.73 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario FLnurserySTD_V2 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 
144 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.14 .99 .062 

5/20 Foliar 0.14 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (pasture, aerial) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the RangeBSS field scenario. A graphical presentation of the yearto-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 3.5% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(64.7% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (35.3%) and erosion (0.02%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 687.4 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 713.5 days) followed 

by volatilization (18759.6 days). 
145 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (692.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 692.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 30.6 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 30.5 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 30.2 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 29.6 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 26.2 

Entire Simulation Mean 21.2 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario RangeBSS 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.14 .95 .125 

5/25 Foliar 0.14 .95 .125 

6/4 Foliar 0.14 .95 .125 

6/14 Foliar 0.14 .95 .125 
146 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 

Summary of Water Modeling of tebufenozide and the USEPA 

Standard Pond (pasture, ground) 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for tebufenozide are presented in Table 1 for the 

USEPA standard pond with the RangeBSS field scenario. A graphical presentation of the yearto-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

This model estimates that about 3% of tebufenozide applied to the field eventually reaches the 

water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff 

(79.4% of the total transport), followed by spray drift (20.6%) and erosion (0.03%). 

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 687.4 days. 

(This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only 

processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of 

dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 713.5 days) followed 

by volatilization (18759.6 days). 

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (692.6 days). The main source of 

dissipation in the benthic region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 692.6 days). The 

vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (91.9%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in 

the pore water. 

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for tebufenozide. 

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 26.5 

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 26.4 

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 26.3 

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 25.8 
147 

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 22.8 

Entire Simulation Mean 18.1 

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for tebufenozide. 

Scenario RangeBSS 

Cropped Area Fraction 1 

Koc (ml/g) 105 

Water Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 553.2 

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 537 

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 40 

°Lat 

0 

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0 

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 25 °C 93.1 

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0 

Molecular Wt 352 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.25e-8 

Solubility (mg/l) .83 

Table 3. Application Schedule for tebufenozide. 

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift 

5/15 Foliar 0.14 .99 .062 

5/25 Foliar 0.14 .99 .062 

6/4 Foliar 0.14 .99 .062 

6/14 Foliar 0.14 .99 .062 

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations 
148 
149 

Appendix D. Example T-REX (v. 1.5.2) Input and Output for Tebufenozide 

What body weight range is assessed 

(grams)? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35

Large

1000 1000

Assessed Species Inputs (optional, use defaults for RQs for national level 

assessments)
150 

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

100 343.51 3.44 157.44 1.57 193.23 1.93 21.47 0.21 134.54 1.35

Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Short Grass

NOAEC 

(ppm)

Tall Grass Arthropods

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

EECs and RQs

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 10989.15 327.51 0.03 150.11 0.01 184.23 0.02 20.47 0.00 128.2761503 0.011672979 4.5488 0.000413935

35 8891.40 226.36 0.03 103.75 0.01 127.33 0.01 14.15 0.00 88.65598092 0.009970984 3.1438 0.000353581

1000 3845.80 52.48 0.01 24.05 0.01 29.52 0.01 3.28 0.00 20.5552 0.00534484 0.7289 0.000189533

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

Size 

Class

(grams)

Adjusted

LD50 Short Grass

EECs and RQs

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

200 343.51 1.72 157.44 0.79 193.23 0.97 21.47 0.11 134.54 0.67

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

EECs and RQs

Arthropods

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

NOAEC 

(ppm)

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 27.69 327.51 11.83 150.11 5.42 184.23 6.65 20.47 0.74 128.28 4.63 4.55 0.16

35 22.41 226.36 10.10 103.75 4.63 127.33 5.68 14.15 0.63 88.66 3.96 3.14 0.14

1000 9.69 52.48 5.42 24.05 2.48 29.52 3.05 3.28 0.34 20.56 2.12 0.73 0.08

Granivore

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients

EECs and RQs

Size 

Class

(grams)

Adjusted 

NOAEL Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods
151 

Appendix E. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for Tebufenozide 

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2

Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4). 

Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

Chemical Name

PC code

Use

Application Method

Application Form

Solubility in Water (ppm)

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 0.47 lbs a.i./A

Incorporation I 1 none

Runoff Fraction R 0.01 none

Drift Fraction D 0.05 none

Equation EEC

(A/I)*R 0.0047

(A/I)*R*10 0.047

A*D 0.0235

((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0282

((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.0705

0.83

129026

Description

Total for semi-aquatic areas

Table 3. EECs for Tebufenozide. Units in lbs a.i./A.

Runoff to dry areas

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas

Spray drift

Total for dry areas

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Tebufenozide

Tree nuts

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Airblast

Liquid
152 

Appendix F. STIR Input Parameters and Results 

Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Tebufenozide

Enter Chemical Use Tree nuts, etc.

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) air

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 352.26

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 2.30E-08

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.47

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 2150

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 5000

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 1.33

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.271

Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m3) 4.36E-04

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 5.48E-05

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 4.12E+00

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.33E-05 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.52E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.10E-02 Exposure not Likely Significant

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m3) 4.36E-04

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 6.89E-05

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 9.59E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 7.18E-07 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 5.68E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 5.92E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant
153 

Appendix G. SIP Input Parameters and Results 

Table 2. Mammalian Results 

Parameter Acute Chronic 

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 0.1428 0.1428 

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 3845.8028 9.6914 

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0000 0.0147 

Conclusion* 

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals 

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals 

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name Tebufenozide

Solubility (in water at 25o

C; mg/L) 0.83

Mammalian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 5000

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 12.6

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2150

Avian test species northern bobwhite quail

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 980

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 100

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species 0

Body weight (g) of other avian species

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird species

Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 0.6723 0.6723

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 1548.9235 10.6298

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0004 0.0632

Conclusion*

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, 

when aggregated with other routes (i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water 

may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non-target animals.
154 

Appendix H. Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for Tebufenozide 

Table H.1. Available environmental fate data for tebufenozide and remaining data gaps 

158 

Guideline 

(OCSPP) 

Description MRID Classification Data

Gap? Comments 

161-1 

(835.2120) 

Hydrolysis 424362-04 Acceptable No 

161-2 

(835.2240) 

Photodegradation in water 424362-05 Supplemental No The study was conducted in pond water, not in 

buffered systems as required. However, based on the 

UV absorbance spectrum, aqueous photolysis is not 

expected. 

161-3 

(835.2410) 

Photodegradation on soil 429915-12 Acceptable No 

161-4 

(835.2370) 

Photodegradation in air NA Waived. No Based on low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law 

Constant, limited volatility is assumed. 

162-1 

(835.4100) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 424362-06 

478811-02 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

No Acceptable data available for one U.S. (CA loam) and 

four German soils. Data for one additional U.S. (NJ 

sandy loam) soil were judged not valid due to 

anomalous degradation profile and absence of 

microbial biomass measurements. 

162-2 

835.4200 

Anaerobic soil metabolism NA NA No Data not needed since an acceptable anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism study has been submitted. 

162-4 

(835.4300) 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 424362-07 Acceptable No 

162-3 

(835.4400) 

Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 

429312-16 Acceptable No 

163-1 

(835.1230) 

(835.1240) 

 Leaching and adsorption/ 

desorption 

424362-08 Acceptable No 

429312-18 Acceptable The study was upgraded to acceptable by the 

submission of additional information (DP211383). 

429312-19 Supplemental Data are supplemental because they are for a 

degradate. The study is valid and meets guidelines. 

163-2 

(835.1410) 

Laboratory Volatility NA Waived No 

164-1 

(835.6100) 

Terrestrial Field Dissipation 429915-14 Acceptable No Upgraded to acceptable in DP211383. Two CA 

bareground studies. 

437977-03 Supplemental Bareground studies in NY and WA. Supplemental 

since incomplete data reported on water balance and 

soil taxonomic classification. 

164-2 

(835.6200) 

Aquatic Field Dissipation NA Not typically 

required for 

terrestrial 

applications 

No 

164-3 Forestry Field Dissipation 439356-05 

439356-10 

Not 

Acceptable 

In

Reserve 

Submitted study is not acceptable. Data were too 

variable to determine the dissipation rate. Parent and 

degradates were not stable in frozen storage. 

439356-04 Not 

Acceptable 

Submitted study is not acceptable. Data were too 

variable to determine the dissipation rate. Parent and 

degradates were not stable in frozen storage. 

165-4 Bioaccumulation in Fish 424362-09 Acceptable No Was upgraded to acceptable following submission of 

metabolite identification data. 

429312-24 Acceptable 
155 

Appendix I. Classifications of Ecological Effects Studies Cited in the Risk Assessment for 

Tebufenozide 

Table I.1. Available ecological effects data for terrestrial animals exposed to tebufenozide. 

158 

Guideline 

(OPPTS) 

Description MRID/

Accession Classification Comments 

71-1 

(850.2100) Avian oral toxicity 42436234 Acceptable 

*Close proximity to non-study 

(untreated) foraging areas. 

71-2 

(850.2200) Avian dietary toxicity 

42436235 Acceptable 

42436237 Acceptable 

71-4 

(850.2300) 

Avian reproduction 42991501 Acceptable 

141-1 

(850.3020) 

Honeybee acute contact 

toxicity 42436244 Acceptable 

141-5 

(850.3040) 

Field testing for 

pollinators 

47929605 Supplemental* 

47929606 Supplemental** **Poor performance relative to bee 

development. 

Nonguideline Semi-field testing for 

pollinators 

47929602 Supplemental*** ***Limited difference between 

positive and negative controls. 

47929603 Supplemental  ** **Potential cross-over in foraging 

activity across treatment groups. 

47929604 Invalid***** *****High control mortality. 
156 

Table I.2. Available ecological effects data for aquatic animals exposed to tebufenozide. 

Guideline Description MRID/

Accession

Classification Comments 

72-1 

(850.1075) 

Freshwater fish – 

Acute toxicity 

42436240 Acceptable 

**Mysid life cycle test failed to 

establish a NOAEC. 

***Fathead minnow full lifecycle 

failed to establish NOAEC 

42436239 Acceptable 

47926502 

(degradate) Supplemental 

47926503 

(degradate) Supplemental 

47926504 

(degradate) Supplemental 

47926509 

(degradate) Supplemental 

72-3 

(850.1075) 

Saltwater fish – 

Acute toxicity 42991504 Acceptable 

72-2 

(850.1010) 

Freshwater invertebrates – 

Acute toxicity 

42436241 Acceptable 

43699701 

(TEP) Acceptable 

47926501 

(degradate) Supplemental 

47926505 

(degradate) Supplemental 

47926507 

(degradate) Supplemental 

72-3 

(850.1025) 

(850.1035) 

Saltwater invertebrates – 

Acute toxicity 

42807701 Acceptable 

42991505 Acceptable 

72-4 

(850.1300) 

Freshwater invertebrate – 

 life cycle test 

44198301 Acceptable 

42436243 Acceptable 

43699702 

(TEP) Supplemental 

72-4 

(850.1350) 

Saltwater invertebrates – 

life cycle test 

44414301 Acceptable 

42991505 Supplemental 

72-4 

(850.1400) 

Freshwater fish – 

early life stage test 42436242 Acceptable 

72-4 

(850.1400) 

Saltwater fish – 

early life stage test 44080901 Supplemental 

72-5 

(850.1500) 

Fish – 

life cycle test 44221901 Supplemental 

OECD 229 

(890.1350) 

Fish short term 

reproduction 48702201 Acceptable 

****Submitted by registrant in 

response to data call-in for fish full 

life cycle toxicity. 
157 

Table I-3. Available ecological effects data for plants exposed to tebufenozide. 

Guideline Description MRID Classification Comments 

122-1 

(850.4100) 

Terrestrial Plant toxicity: Tier 

I seedling emergence 

48533001 Acceptable* *Consistent with Tier 1 toxicity 

guideline but did not establish a 

NOAEL for dicots. 

**Phytotoxic effects in controls. 

123-1 

(850.4225) 

Terrestrial Plant toxicity: Tier 

2 seedling emergence 

NA Not submitted 

122-1 

(850.4150) 

Terrestrial Plant toxicity: Tier 

I vegetative vigor 

48533002 Acceptable* 

123-1 

(850.4150) 

Terrestrial Plant toxicity: Tier 

2 vegetative vigor 

NA Not submitted 

122-2 

(850.4400) 

Aquatic Plant Growth: algae 42436245 Supplemental** 

42629501 Supplemental 

47926506 

(degradate) 

Supplemental 

47926508 

(degradate) 

Supplemental 

47926510 

(degradate) 

Supplemental 

122-2 

(850.4400) 

Aquatic Plant Growth: 

vascular plants 

48533003 Acceptable 
158 

Attachments (Separate Electronic Files) 

Attachment I. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature (June 2014 Refresh) 

Attachment II. ECOTOX Data Table (June 2014 Refresh)